# What is it about the gays?..



## Christy

I'm not even sure why I am bringing this up, because I already know how this discussion will go (not well).  But it has always befuddled me as to how much anger homosexuality brings out in so many Christians.  Take this article for instance.  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/9/transgendered-priest-give-sermon-washington-nation/

You've got a transgendered Episcopal Priest giving a sermon at the National Cathedral. The comments at the end are just insane.  Talk about some hate being leveled at other human beings by the religion that is supposed to be all about "love thy neighbor" and whatnot.

Sure it's a sin, you can't say (in accordance with the bible) that it isn't, however, so is coveting and adultery.  Not keeping the sabbath day holy is also a big no no.   So all you football fans are sinning like nobodies business (just sayin).  :shrug:

I just don't get why being a homo is so much worse than any of the other sins within the Bible.  Hell, being queer didn't even make the Top Ten (as in commandments). 

What's with all the hate?  Please discuss.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

Personally, I think people use religion as a crutch for their own deep-seeded hatred of soemthing they do not like or understand. They use it to spread hatred and fear of something they know nothing about.


----------



## hotcoffee

Christy said:


> I'm not even sure why I am bringing this up, because I already know how this discussion will go (not well).  But it has always befuddled me as to how much anger homosexuality brings out in so many Christians.  Take this article for instance.  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/9/transgendered-priest-give-sermon-washington-nation/
> 
> You've got a transgendered Episcopal Priest giving a sermon at the National Cathedral. The comments at the end are just insane.  Talk about some hate being leveled at other human beings by the religion that is supposed to be all about "love thy neighbor" and whatnot.
> 
> Sure it's a sin, you can't say (in accordance with the bible) that it isn't, however, so is coveting and adultery.  Not keeping the sabbath day holy is also a big no no.   So all you football fans are sinning like nobodies business (just sayin).  :shrug:
> 
> I just don't get why being a homo is so much worse than any of the other sins within the Bible.  Hell, being queer didn't even make the Top Ten (as in commandments).
> 
> What's with all the hate?  Please discuss.



Personally, I don't think sin has levels making one sin worse than another.  

Homosexuality is discussed in the Bible... thanks for agreeing.... as is adultery and murder.... the problem is... you can stop murdering and you can stop adultery, you can get your drinking under control, and you can correct a myriad of sins and stop.... homosexuals, transgender, trans-sexual.... seem to be harder to stop.  

The woman at the well had 5 husbands and the one she was living with was not her husband.  After leaving the well.... I bet she corrected that....  

Homosexuality, bisexuality, transgender, and trans-sexual lifestyles have become accepted.  People say they are born that way and we should all accept it.  I guess that's the issue.... we must accept... but we can't....  we're supposed to pray for the sinner.... and that upsets the sinner.... because they are born that way.... see, it's a rough one to deal with....

I was born talking too much about things that don't concern me personally.... guess I should pray about that...


----------



## b23hqb

Christy said:


> I'm not even sure why I am bringing this up, because I already know how this discussion will go (not well).  But it has always befuddled me as to how much anger homosexuality brings out in so many Christians.  Take this article for instance.  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/9/transgendered-priest-give-sermon-washington-nation/
> 
> You've got a transgendered Episcopal Priest giving a sermon at the National Cathedral. The comments at the end are just insane.  Talk about some hate being leveled at other human beings by the religion that is supposed to be all about "love thy neighbor" and whatnot.
> 
> Sure it's a sin, you can't say (in accordance with the bible) that it isn't, however, so is coveting and adultery.  Not keeping the sabbath day holy is also a big no no.   So all you football fans are sinning like nobodies business (just sayin).  :shrug:
> 
> I just don't get why being a homo is so much worse than any of the other sins within the Bible.  Hell, being queer didn't even make the Top Ten (as in commandments).
> 
> What's with all the hate?  Please discuss.



Simply seeing that you see that this will not turn out "well" - we've been there before. Think a little bit will make it clear, whether you agree or not: 

Homosexuality has been defined twice as an abomination in Leviticus (18:22, 18:13) and just check out Romans 1:18-32, specifically 26-27). Homosexuality is what it is - an abomination against God and against nature.

As far as the ten commandants - are you serious? 

Exodus 20:14 - "Thou shall not commit adultery"

Seeing that God has determined that marriage  is only between a man and a woman (Gen 2:24), any sex outside of marriage, homosexual or heterosexual, is adulterous, negating your assumption that homosexuality didn't even make the Ten Commandments. Every sin that man has come up with is in the top 10 in one way or another.

Seeing that marriage is between a man and woman only, any sexual relations between anybody outside marriage is adulterous - Commandment 7.

Does that answer your question?


----------



## vraiblonde

I don't give a damn about gay people - they barely register with me as "different" but trannies are on my radar.  I don't "hate" them or even have any real animosity, but I don't want tranny men in my restroom and that's the end of the story.  If it's a gay male friend he can come in because I know him but I don't want strange men hanging around when I'm trying to pee, pretending he's one of the girls.  And it's always men who have this PITA deviant behavior - you never hear of tranny women insisting that they be allowed to use the urinal.

If you, Mr. Tranny, are truly gender confused, then be that way and stop feeling the need to announce it and make it everyone else's problem.  You come in the Ladies Room dressed like a lady, I won't notice you and you can do your bidness and be on your way.  When you come sashaying in, however, and make a production out of it, NOW I want you out.  Especially if you don't even make a decent effort to look like a woman - at least fix that lipstick and shave your legs if you're going to wear a dress.

So I guess that's the real problem I have - not that the tranny guy wants to use the chick potty, but that he feels the need to make a statement and be an ahole about it.  So I'm okay with trannies as long as they're fun and not militant aholes.  Trannies are fine; aholes not so much.


----------



## Vince

Catholic and I don't hate gays, etc.  I don't think they are correct, but I don't hate them.  Their problem, not mine.  Just quit shoving your gay agenda in my face. :shrug:


----------



## baydoll

Non-Denom. Born Again Christian Mother of a Gay Son here and I don't hate gays either. Matter of fact I would say the majority (if not all) of the Christians I know don't hate gays. If they do then they're the ones doing the sinning. Christians are called to love everyone no matter what. 

As for gays being leaders in a Christian church? That's a no no. Doesn't have anything to do with 'hate' but everything to do with following and obeying God. 

Hey if that doesn't appeal to them they're always free to start their own churches.


----------



## Christy

b23hqb said:


> Does that answer your question?




Not really.  The question I posed was why homosexuality or transgender brings out so much anger in so many Christians?  I didn't argue against it being a sin, it clearly is, however this particular sin tends to make people lose their minds.


----------



## Christy

baydoll said:


> As for gays being leaders in a Christian church? That's a no no. Doesn't have anything to do with 'hate' but everything to do with following and obeying God.



Why is this?  Does any human being (gay or straight) truly obey God?  I think those who truly believe, try, but always fail. Gay or straight.  I thought that was the whole point of Christianity?  Forgiveness because everyone is a sinner.


----------



## Christy

vraiblonde said:


> I don't give a damn about gay people.



Well you are an atheist, so any hate you may have is your own, not directed to you to have by a higher being.


----------



## Toxick

Christy said:


> What's with all the hate?  Please discuss.





When I think about two sweaty hairy male bodies pressed together intimately, I can immediately feel the rage start to boil. All that sin - it's an affront to God and humanity. As they become more visibly aroused and the veins in their throbbing erections become more palpable, the only natural reaction is one of anger and violence. And don't even get me started on my reaction as one of those tan muscular homosexuals dips his freshly shaven scrotum in a mixing bowl full of massage oil and rubs it on the other one's rock-hard abs, it makes my breath shorten in wrath; and I just get so mad I want to grab that rigid shaft and shake it in anger and holler at it, until all of that unholy evil spills over a glass coffee-table or a fresh black satin sheet, to be cleaned up by another guy just like him wearing nothing but a thong and bow-tie.


How can you not be angry at that!


----------



## baydoll

Christy said:


> Why is this?  Does any human being (gay or straight) truly obey God?  I think those who truly believe, try, but always fail. Gay or straight.  I thought that was the whole point of Christianity?  Forgiveness because everyone is a sinner.



The whole point of Christianity is to follow God period; not follow God AND Self. If one truly desires to follow God then that person will make every effort to 'go and sin no more' and that includes letting go of their sinful desires (with God's help, of course.)



> Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask, *because we keep his commands and do what pleases him.*


 1 John 3:21-22


----------



## Chris0nllyn

Toxick said:


> When I think about two sweaty hairy male bodies pressed together intimately, I can immediately feel the rage start to boil. All that sin - it's an affront to God and humanity. As they become more visibly aroused and the veins in their throbbing erections become more palpable, the only natural reaction is one of anger and violence. And don't even get me started on my reaction as one of those tan muscular homosexuals dips his freshly shaven scrotum in a mixing bowl full of massage oil and rubs it on the other one's rock-hard abs, it makes my breath shorten in wrath; and I just get so mad I want to grab that rigid shaft and shake it in anger and holler at it, until all of that unholy evil spills over a glass coffee-table or a fresh black satin sheet, to be cleaned up by another guy just like him wearing nothing but a thong and bow-tie.
> 
> 
> How can you not be angry at that!





You have won the interwebz today, sir.


----------



## Christy

Toxick said:


> How can you not be angry at that!



If they waxed would it make you less angry?


----------



## Christy

baydoll said:


> The whole point of Christianity is to follow God period; not follow God AND Self. If one truly desires to follow God then that person will make every effort to 'go and sin no more' and that includes letting go of their sinful desires (with God's help, of course.)
> 
> 1 John 3:21-22



Do you do this?  If so, how often are you successful and how often do you fall short?


----------



## Christy

Chris0nllyn said:


> You have won the interwebz today, sir.



  It was pretty awesome.


----------



## Toxick

Chris0nllyn said:


> You have won the interwebz today, sir.


----------



## Larry Gude

baydoll said:


> The whole point of Christianity is to follow God period; not follow God AND Self. If one truly desires to follow God then that person will make every effort to 'go and sin no more' and that includes letting go of their sinful desires (with God's help, of course.)
> 
> 1 John 3:21-22



All well and good. Religious freedom. 

How about people who are not Christians? Are you supposed to hate them? Cast them out? Not bake them cakes?


----------



## Toxick

Larry Gude said:


> How about people who are not Christians? Are you supposed to hate them? Cast them out? Not bake them cakes?





No, we're supposed to feel sorry for you. Because you're going to spend eternity in hell - as one of Satan's dingleberries. :sad:


----------



## Larry Gude

Toxick said:


> No, we're supposed to feel sorry for you. Because you're going to spend eternity in hell - as one of Satan's dingleberries. :sad:



I'm a Christian


----------



## vraiblonde

Toxick said:


> When I think about two sweaty hairy male bodies pressed together intimately, I can immediately feel the rage start to boil. All that sin - it's an affront to God and humanity. As they become more visibly aroused and the veins in their throbbing erections become more palpable, the only natural reaction is one of anger and violence. And don't even get me started on my reaction as one of those tan muscular homosexuals dips his freshly shaven scrotum in a mixing bowl full of massage oil and rubs it on the other one's rock-hard abs, it makes my breath shorten in wrath; and I just get so mad I want to grab that rigid shaft and shake it in anger and holler at it, until all of that unholy evil spills over a glass coffee-table or a fresh black satin sheet, to be cleaned up by another guy just like him wearing nothing but a thong and bow-tie.
> 
> 
> How can you not be angry at that!



OMG


----------



## MMDad

b23hqb said:


> Simply seeing that you see that this will not turn out "well" - we've been there before. Think a little bit will make it clear, whether you agree or not:
> 
> Homosexuality has been defined twice as an abomination in Leviticus (18:22, 18:13) and just check out Romans 1:18-32, specifically 26-27). Homosexuality is what it is - an abomination against God and against nature.
> 
> As far as the ten commandants - are you serious?
> 
> Exodus 20:14 - "Thou shall not commit adultery"
> 
> Seeing that God has determined that marriage  is only between a man and a woman (Gen 2:24), any sex outside of marriage, homosexual or heterosexual, is adulterous, negating your assumption that homosexuality didn't even make the Ten Commandments. Every sin that man has come up with is in the top 10 in one way or another.
> 
> Seeing that marriage is between a man and woman only, any sexual relations between anybody outside marriage is adulterous - Commandment 7.
> 
> Does that answer your question?



That must be why you whole heartedly accept people who are gay but abstinent. After all, by your post, being gay isn't a problem at all. It's all about the adultry.

A man and woman living together outside of marriage may be looked down on by some, but they inspire nowhere near the anger that gays do. Even if you have no knowledge of them acting on their desires, simply the fact that they have those desires is enough to warrant a visceral response from so many. Yet a man who stares at a cheerleader doesn't get the same response even though the lust is equivelant.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

MMDad said:


> That must be why you whole heartedly accept people who are gay but abstinent. After all, by your post, being gay isn't a problem at all. It's all about the adultry.
> 
> A man and woman living together outside of marriage may be looked down on by some, but they inspire nowhere near the anger that gays do. Even if you have no knowledge of them acting on their desires, simply the fact that they have those desires is enough to warrant a visceral response from so many. Yet a man who stares at a cheerleader doesn't get the same response even though the lust is equivelant.



Not to mention quoting Leviticus to make a point, while ignoring the other parts of it.

Ones like:


> Leviticus 19:27 "You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard."





> Leviticus 19:28 "You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord."





> Leviticus 19:19 "You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together."





> Leviticus 11:10 "But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you."


----------



## migtig

Toxick said:


> When I think about two sweaty hairy male bodies pressed together intimately, I can immediately feel the rage start to boil. All that sin - it's an affront to God and humanity. As they become more visibly aroused and the veins in their throbbing erections become more palpable, the only natural reaction is one of anger and violence. And don't even get me started on my reaction as one of those tan muscular homosexuals dips his freshly shaven scrotum in a mixing bowl full of massage oil and rubs it on the other one's rock-hard abs, it makes my breath shorten in wrath; and I just get so mad I want to grab that rigid shaft and shake it in anger and holler at it, until all of that unholy evil spills over a glass coffee-table or a fresh black satin sheet, to be cleaned up by another guy just like him wearing nothing but a thong and bow-tie.
> 
> 
> How can you not be angry at that!



Post of the freaking year!  So glad I read this tread.


----------



## MMDad

migtig said:


> Post of the freaking year!  So glad I read this tread.



I'm still barfing over it.


----------



## Toxick

Larry Gude said:


> I'm a Christian






It was the rhetorical you.

Not you.







However with that said, let me say this: Shyeah, right!


----------



## Toxick

Chris0nllyn said:


> Not to mention quoting Leviticus to make a point, while ignoring the other parts of it.
> 
> Ones like:






Old testament laws do not apply to Christians. They're in the bible for Canon and Archival Purposes, however Jesus superseded them in the New Covenant.




Which is why Christians can eat cheeseburgers and lobster and also we can tattoo enormous crosses on our backs.











(Note: This was not a rebuttal of your post - merely an observation that your post inspired)


----------



## Chris0nllyn

Toxick said:


> *Certain* Old testament laws do not apply to Christians. They're in the bible for Canon and Archival Purposes, however Jesus superseded them in the New Covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why Christians can eat cheeseburgers and lobster and also we can tattoo enormous crosses on our backs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Note: This was not a rebuttal of your post - merely an observation that your post inspired)



Fixed for you.


----------



## Toxick

Chris0nllyn said:


> Fixed for you.





I disagree-ish.



I would argue that if one follows the Spirit of Jesus's message, they will quite often maintain the letter of OT law, although they are not _expressly_ following OT law. For instance, Jesus's tells us to "Love Your Neighbor". So a Christian following the doctrine of Christ would naturally not steal nor commit murder - thus indirectly following two major laws contained under the Ten Commandments (among others).

Things like tattoos, and dietary restrictions are moot.


And, of course, things like "Eye for an Eye and a Tooth for a Tooth" are explicitly negated when Jesus tells us "turn to them the other [cheek] also".


----------



## Christy

Larry Gude said:


> I'm a Christian



Born and raised Methodist.  We are the hippies of the Christian religion, so I'm not even really sure I'm considered to be a "real" Christian. 

But whatever.


----------



## b23hqb

Christy said:


> Not really.  The question I posed was why homosexuality or transgender brings out so much anger in so many Christians?  I didn't argue against it being a sin, it clearly is, however this particular sin tends to make people lose their minds.



As a born again Christian from a non-denominational evangelical church, we do not hate homosexuals. We hate the sin, but try our best to follow Gods instruction to love the sinner.

It is a hot button topic that the homosexual communi-tuh, looking for confrontation, loves to force on people, especially Christians. 

I hate that three letter word that starts with" g and ends with y" that they co-opted from the rest of the 95% of mankind that happen to be straight, though. That's why they are always homosexual to me, anyway. No matter how much lipstick you put on the word "homosexual" to make it and the practice seem so much nicer, cleaner, more appealing to society, it is still homosexuality.

They can, and will, do what they want. But keep it out of my face, please.


----------



## Christy

b23hqb said:


> They can, and will, do what they want. But keep it out of my face, please.



I agree with this.  I think homosexuals, transgenders etc.. do themselves a huge disservice by constantly trying to cram their agenda down everyone's throats.  I believe everyone should live and let live, but I will admit to finding it incredibly irritating to be accused of bigotry and being closed minded for being offended by what goes on at many gay pride events.  I am also annoyed with every new television show incorporating a gay person.  It is maddening.  Not because I'm opposed to gays, but really, who cares?  Take the show Nashville for instance.  It's like they wrote the show and then went "oh crap, forgot about the gay quota", so they throw in some gay country singer.  Really? 

It annoys me hearing a news story that starts off with "the first gay.....".  Who cares?  No one should.  Not one way or the other.  An individual should be recognized for their true accomplishments, not because they are gay.

With that said. Those are MY peeves.  I don't attribute them to any religious doctrine.


----------



## b23hqb

Larry Gude said:


> I'm a Christian



Really? Yet you support and defend the homosexual position - constantly. How do you reconcile that with Gods' position on homosexuality? Supporting a sin?


----------



## hotcoffee

Christy said:


> I agree with this.  I think homosexuals, transgenders etc.. do themselves a huge disservice by constantly trying to cram their agenda down everyone's throats.  I believe everyone should live and let live, but I will admit to finding it incredibly irritating to be accused of bigotry and being closed minded for being offended by what goes on at many gay pride events.  I am also annoyed with every new television show incorporating a gay person.  It is maddening.  Not because I'm opposed to gays, but really, who cares?  Take the show Nashville for instance.  It's like they wrote the show and then went "oh crap, forgot about the gay quota", so they throw in some gay country singer.  Really?
> 
> It annoys me hearing a news story that starts off with "the first gay.....".  Who cares?  No one should.  Not one way or the other.  An individual should be recognized for their true accomplishments, not because they are gay.
> 
> With that said. Those are MY peeves.  I don't attribute them to any religious doctrine.



Yep... you got it....  I have freckles.... I use to say we needed to fight for the rights of the polka-dotted-people of the world!


----------



## Beta

b23hqb said:


> Simply seeing that you see that this will not turn out "well" - we've been there before. Think a little bit will make it clear, whether you agree or not:
> 
> Homosexuality has been defined twice as an abomination in Leviticus (18:22, 18:13) and just check out Romans 1:18-32, specifically 26-27). Homosexuality is what it is - an abomination against God and against nature.
> 
> As far as the ten commandants - are you serious?
> 
> Exodus 20:14 - "Thou shall not commit adultery"
> 
> Seeing that God has determined that marriage  is only between a man and a woman (Gen 2:24), any sex outside of marriage, homosexual or heterosexual, is adulterous, negating your assumption that homosexuality didn't even make the Ten Commandments. Every sin that man has come up with is in the top 10 in one way or another.
> 
> Seeing that marriage is between a man and woman only, any sexual relations between anybody outside marriage is adulterous - Commandment 7.
> 
> Does that answer your question?



So that explains why people are as hateful toward cheaters as homosexuals, right?  Even homosexuals that don't act on their urges.  Riiiiight.


----------



## Beta

b23hqb said:


> Really? Yet you support and defend the homosexual position - constantly. How do you reconcile that with Gods' position on homosexuality? Supporting a sin?



John 8:7 --> But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, "*He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone* at her."

Jesus, that dude you Christians supposedly believe in and follow without question, essentially said live and let live.  Why are YOU casting stones without his permission?  FOR SHAME!


----------



## b23hqb

Beta said:


> So that explains why people are as hateful toward cheaters as homosexuals, right?  Even homosexuals that don't act on their urges.  Riiiiight.



Whaaaaaa????? You have some "splainin" to do, Beta? From your homosexual urges, that is.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

Toxick said:


> I disagree-ish.
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue that if one follows the Spirit of Jesus's message, they will quite often maintain the letter of OT law, although they are not _expressly_ following OT law. For instance, Jesus's tells us to "Love Your Neighbor". So a Christian following the doctrine of Christ would naturally not steal nor commit murder - thus indirectly following two major laws contained under the Ten Commandments (among others).
> 
> Things like tattoos, and dietary restrictions are moot.
> 
> 
> And, of course, things like "Eye for an Eye and a Tooth for a Tooth" are explicitly negated when Jesus tells us "turn to them the other [cheek] also".



I just mean from this point of view. Lev. 18:22, 20:13 was brought up to show that "homosexuality is an abomination". That's OT, and it's using OT to prove a point. Ask that same person if they follow all other Lev laws and they say that the bible is meant for guidance and not for exact interpretation. It's hypocritcal, IMO.

I sat in a Catholic church not too long ago, when Md was passing the gay marriag bill. The church had folks set up in the door ways asking people to sign a petition to stop it. The pastor drove home the point that gays shouldn't be married and asked all to sign.

It was the last time I went to that church, and it rubbed myself, and my significant other in a wrong way. Now, that being said, people have every right to feel and say whatever they please, but let's all be honest here....if they didn't care about the "gays" like they claim, why do they care about them being married? If it's the church's and your life mission to help them free from sin, why not focus on other sin, like helping couples going through divorce get back together?


----------



## b23hqb

Chris0nllyn said:


> I just mean from this point of view. Lev. 18:22, 20:13 was brought up to show that "homosexuality is an abomination". That's OT, and it's using OT to prove a point. Ask that same person if they follow all other Lev laws and they say that the bible is meant for guidance and not for exact interpretation. It's hypocritcal, IMO.
> 
> I sat in a Catholic church not too long ago, when Md was passing the gay marriag bill. The church had folks set up in the door ways asking people to sign a petition to stop it. The pastor drove home the point that gays shouldn't be married and asked all to sign.
> 
> It was the last time I went to that church, and it rubbed myself, and my significant other in a wrong way. Now, that being said, people have every right to feel and say whatever they please, but let's all be honest here....if they didn't care about the "gays" like they claim, why do they care about them being married? If it's the church's and your life mission to help them free from sin, why not focus on other sin, like helping couples going through divorce get back together?



You are talking the catholic church. Ask the pope to 'splain it to anyone. He can't.

You'll get the same answer. Sin is sin. Why focus on on one and not any other?


----------



## Chris0nllyn

b23hqb said:


> You are talking the catholic church. Ask the pope to 'splain it to anyone. He can't.
> 
> You'll get the same answer. Sin is sin. Why focus on on one and not any other?



I don't know, you tell me.

I don't see the Westboro Baptists Church members holding "God hates lobster eaters", or "God hates divorcees" signs while pickiting the Seattle fish market or the local courthouse.

BTW, Pope said "Who am I to judge".

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/29/pope-francis-on-gays-who-am-i-to-judge/


----------



## MMDad

b23hqb said:


> Whaaaaaa????? You have some "splainin" to do, Beta? From your homosexual urges, that is.



Perfect example there. You see someone arguing the point, so you try to insult him by calling him homosexual. You have no evidence he is, yet that's right where you went. You didn't call him an adulterer, liar, envyer, thief, murderer, or heretic. You called him homosexual as an insult, even though you pretend to hate all sin equally. Yet your own words show otherwise.


----------



## Beta

b23hqb said:


> Whaaaaaa????? You have some "splainin" to do, Beta? From your homosexual urges, that is.



So when you have no sound argument, you just call people gay?  

Why do I bother arguing with morons?  Don't answer that.


----------



## onel0126

Chris0nllyn said:


> I just mean from this point of view. Lev. 18:22, 20:13 was brought up to show that "homosexuality is an abomination". That's OT, and it's using OT to prove a point. Ask that same person if they follow all other Lev laws and they say that the bible is meant for guidance and not for exact interpretation. It's hypocritcal, IMO.  I sat in a Catholic church not too long ago, when Md was passing the gay marriag bill. The church had folks set up in the door ways asking people to sign a petition to stop it. The pastor drove home the point that gays shouldn't be married and asked all to sign.  It was the last time I went to that church, and it rubbed myself, and my significant other in a wrong way. Now, that being said, people have every right to feel and say whatever they please, but let's all be honest here....if they didn't care about the "gays" like they claim, why do they care about them being married? If it's the church's and your life mission to help them free from sin, why not focus on other sin, like helping couples going through divorce get back together?



The Catholic Church in Maryland, at least the 5 counties that are in the Archdiocese of Washington did have a letter signing campaign against redefining marriage, NOT civil unions. That is all--nothing anti-gay here, move on.

The Catholic Church does have programs to assist couples in their marriage problems; google Retrovaille. 

Please, with all do respect, if you are going to claim to be Catholic, please for the love of God know your faith BEFORE you speak for the faith. Not properly catechized and "used to be Catholics" that "speak for the Church" do nothing but create confusion and feed into Protestant and atheist misconceptions about the Church.


----------



## vraiblonde

I think the answer is "because it's sex".

Fundie Christians don't have a reputation for gettin' jiggy wid it, so they most likely don't approve of someone else doing so.  And let's be real here:  gay men are the worst about everything being about sex.  Lesbian women don't fill their FB with pics of hot nubile women, but gay men have more lascivious pics and posts than a porn site.  Gay pride parades are completely embarrassing displays of everything sexually offensive.  That's probably at least part of the reason Christians don't like gay people, because gays go out of their way to offend them.

Just a guess.


----------



## Beta

vraiblonde said:


> I think the answer is "because it's sex".
> 
> Fundie Christians don't have a reputation for gettin' jiggy wid it, so they most likely don't approve of someone else doing so.  And let's be real here:  gay men are the worst about everything being about sex.  Lesbian women don't fill their FB with pics of hot nubile women, but gay men have more lascivious pics and posts than a porn site.  Gay pride parades are completely embarrassing displays of everything sexually offensive.  That's probably at least part of the reason Christians don't like gay people, because gays go out of their way to offend them.
> 
> Just a guess.



I wonder what the gay haters stalked before Facebook to notice such trends.  :shrug:



I'm pretty sure I'm facebook friends with a handful of gay people.  The most lascivious pics I see on my facebook wall are from straight (sometimes married) women.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

onel0126 said:


> The Catholic Church in Maryland, at least the 5 counties that are in the Archdiocese of Washington did have a letter signing campaign against redefining marriage, NOT civil unions. That is all--nothing anti-gay here, move on.
> 
> The Catholic Church does have programs to assist couples in their marriage problems; google Retrovaille.
> 
> Please, with all do respect, if you are going to claim to be Catholic, please for the love of God know your faith BEFORE you speak for the faith. Not properly catechized and "used to be Catholics" that "speak for the Church" do nothing but create confusion and feed into Protestant and atheist misconceptions about the Church.



I'm an atheist, and have never, ever claimed to be a Catholic, or part of any cult, I mean religion.

I wasn't "speaking for the faith". I was speaking based on my own experience while in church. I was there, and saw it with my own eyes. I have been to many churches, and just because I denounce any religion, I'm still curious and attend for my own education.


----------



## Radiant1

Beta said:


> The most lascivious pics I see on my facebook wall are from straight (sometimes married) women.





I occasionally will like or post a pic of a sexy man. My gay friends don't. They're all about their chorus.


----------



## PsyOps

vraiblonde said:


> I think the answer is "because it's sex".
> 
> Fundie Christians don't have a reputation for gettin' jiggy wid it...



I disagree 

http://www.duggarfamily.com/


----------



## PsyOps

vraiblonde said:


> And let's be real here:  gay men are the worst about everything being about sex.  Lesbian women don't fill their FB with pics of hot nubile women, but gay men have more lascivious pics and posts than a porn site.  Gay pride parades are completely embarrassing displays of everything sexually offensive.  That's probably at least part of the reason Christians don't like gay people, because gays go out of their way to offend them.
> 
> Just a guess.



The ‘fundamental’ reason Christians reject (not hate) gays is because of the behavior, because we are taught that it goes against God’s will.  There could be no parades, photos, porn, public displays, what-have-you… and homosexuality would still be rejected.  But Christians don’t hate the people, they hate the behavior.

I have a gay cousin and know plenty of gay people and don't hate a one of them.  I disagree with their lifestyle but am perfectly capable of being their friends and loving and caring about them.  I disagree with you smoking but that isn't a reason for me to hate you or refuse to be your friend; and more importantly, care about you.


----------



## Hank

PsyOps said:


> The &lsquo;fundamental&rsquo; reason Christians reject (not hate) gays is because of the behavior, because we are taught that it goes against God&rsquo;s will.  There could be no parades, photos, porn, public displays, what-have-you&hellip; and homosexuality would still be rejected.  But Christians don&rsquo;t hate the people, they hate the behavior.
> 
> I have a gay cousin and know plenty of gay people and don't hate a one of them.  I disagree with their lifestyle but am perfectly capable of being their friends and loving and caring about them.  I disagree with you smoking but that isn't a reason for me to hate you or refuse to be your friend; and more importantly, care about you.



Ha. You compare homosexuality to smoking? Smoking may have an affect on you, but how does someone's homosexuality affect you? Are you that insecure with your masculinity that you think you may all the sudden catch the gheybug?


----------



## czygvtwkr

I am going to throw something out there,  almost nobody wants their kids to be gay.  I think a lot of people will think their kids have a chance of being gay if they don't openly hate them, whether they realize it or not.  I also think a lot of people just feel weird about it.  I was hit on by a gay guy once, didn't realize till a woman told me and it made me feel weird once I knew about it.


----------



## b23hqb

PsyOps said:


> The ‘fundamental’ reason Christians reject (not hate) gays is because of the behavior, because we are taught that it goes against God’s will.  There could be no parades, photos, porn, public displays, what-have-you… and homosexuality would still be rejected.  But Christians don’t hate the people, they hate the behavior.
> 
> I have a gay cousin and know plenty of gay people and don't hate a one of them.  I disagree with their lifestyle but am perfectly capable of being their friends and loving and caring about them.  I disagree with you smoking but that isn't a reason for me to hate you or refuse to be your friend; and more importantly, care about you.



Amen. I have (had) two homosexual cousins, both first born boys. My cousin David died of AIDS in 1995 at age 43. My cousin Jimmy, whom I last saw in 2012 at my uncles (his dad's) funeral. lives his carefree lifestyle in Texas. He's my cousin, I love him for being my cousin, but absolutely disagree with his lifestyle. He knows that.  His remaining four brothers and mother (Christians), are in the same boat I am in - love him, pray for him, but cannot condone his anti-God lifestyle.

Practicing homosexuals are what they are - like any one practicing any sin, are definitely not saved. No one can contradict what the Bible preaches.

Change your ways, behavior (mind), and one can be saved.

And Hank - get a life outside the pink bunny suit.


----------



## MMDad

vraiblonde said:


> I think the answer is "because it's sex".
> 
> Fundie Christians don't have a reputation for gettin' jiggy wid it, so they most likely don't approve of someone else doing so.  And let's be real here:  gay men are the worst about everything being about sex.  Lesbian women don't fill their FB with pics of hot nubile women, but gay men have more lascivious pics and posts than a porn site.  Gay pride parades are completely embarrassing displays of everything sexually offensive.  That's probably at least part of the reason Christians don't like gay people, because gays go out of their way to offend them.
> 
> Just a guess.



Disagree. I have a lot of friends from the old days when I was a musician, and there is a large percentage who are gay. If you didn't know it you couldn't tell from their FB posts. They don't hide it, but they don't flaunt it either. One guy married his partner of 25 years last weekend, and their wedding pics were the first time I've seen any displays of affection.

I think czy is closer - guys afraid of catching the gaybug. Or like the colonel in the movie American Beauty. Both ways it's about insecurity.


----------



## PsyOps

Hank said:


> Ha. You compare homosexuality to smoking? Smoking may have an affect on you, but how does someone's homosexuality affect you? Are you that insecure with your masculinity that you think you may all the sudden catch the gheybug?



You sure have me figured out


----------



## PsyOps

MMDad said:


> Disagree. I have a lot of friends from the old days when I was a musician, and there is a large percentage who are gay.



Well, I can tell you there are NO guitar players who are gay.  NONE!  Larry, help me out here.





You're no longer a musician?  How could you let this happen?  You do know that is a sin?  What instrument did you play?


----------



## MMDad

PsyOps said:


> Well, I can tell you there are NO guitar players who are gay.  NONE!  Larry, help me out here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're no longer a musician?  How could you let this happen?  You do know that is a sin?  What instrument did you play?



I play, just not for an audience any more.


----------



## Dakota

baydoll said:


> The whole point of Christianity is to follow God period; not follow God AND Self. If one truly desires to follow God then that person will make every effort to 'go and sin no more' and that includes letting go of their sinful desires (with God's help, of course.)
> 
> 1 John 3:21-22



I will expand on this.  Those who choose to be Christians understand that the commandments are for THEM... them as Christians... It is not for all who have not made the choice to be a Christian.  I think this is where the wires get crossed and Christians think they must convert all when the best way to convert anyone to God's side is to practice and to live within the word.  Christians should not go forth and play judge and jury to people that have not chosen to be a Christian because when they do, they will do more damage than any sinner will ever do.   

The Christian faith is a great place for Narcissistic and Psychopaths to set up shop.  What better place to feed your ego?


----------



## PsyOps

MMDad said:


> I play, just not for an audience any more.



Play what?


----------



## PsyOps

Dakota said:


> I will expand on this.  Those who choose to be Christians understand that the commandments are for THEM... them as Christians... It is not for all who have not made the choice to be a Christian.  I think this is where the wires get crossed and Christians think they must convert all when the best way to convert anyone to God's side is to practice and to live within the word.  Christians should not go forth and play judge and jury to people that have not chosen to be a Christian because when they do, they will do more damage than any sinner will ever do.
> 
> The Christian faith is a great place for Narcissistic and Psychopaths to set up shop.  What better place to feed your ego?


----------



## Hank

PsyOps said:


> You sure have me figured out



What a chit simple analogy.


----------



## baydoll

Christy said:


> Do you do this?  If so, how often are you successful and how often do you fall short?



There's a huge difference between those who _willingly_ sin and those who don't, Christy. Those who truly want to follow God will try everything they can not to sin as oppose to those who could really give a hoot.


----------



## PsyOps

Hank said:


> What a chit simple analogy.



Thank you for playing along.  Your ball is over in the corner of the field where I kicked it.


----------



## PsyOps

baydoll said:


> There's a huge difference between those who _willingly_ sin and those who don't, Christy. Those who truly want to follow God will try everything they can not to sin as oppose to those who could really give a hoot.



What sort of sin would be an unwilling sin?  If you don't know you're sinning how can it be considered a sin.  But for the record, according to the bible, we are born sinners.


----------



## Larry Gude

PsyOps said:


> Well, I can tell you there are NO guitar players who are gay.  NONE!  Larry, help me out here.
> 
> ?



That's actually a good point. I never knew one. Huh....


----------



## Larry Gude

baydoll said:


> There's a huge difference between those who _willingly_ sin and those who don't, Christy. Those who truly want to follow God will try everything they can not to sin as oppose to those who could really give a hoot.



OK, but, if a homosexual isn't a Christian and you are for religious freedom, this is where the crux of the problem lies. It's not like Christians arguing over how other Christians are supposed to behave based on the club rules. All this nonsense is about Christians applying their faith to people who aren't part of that faith. 

It is a absurd to refuse to do what you do for a living, bake a cake, for someone else based on YOUR religions beliefs of how THEY live their life, especially their personal life. There is no way Christ, who served all, refused none, could sit there and say this guy was acting as the Lord would have him.


----------



## baydoll

Larry Gude said:


> All well and good. Religious freedom.
> 
> How about people who are not Christians? Are you supposed to hate them? Cast them out? Not bake them cakes?



Religion freedom? Can you name a Christian Church (not the Catholic one since I'm not Catholic) that has ever not allowed anyone to freely follow another religion of their choice? 

Not bake them cakes? Okay....

And also, when did I say Christians (or any Christian for that matter) are supposed to hate non-Christians? And where do we supposedly cast them out of?


----------



## Larry Gude

baydoll said:


> And also, when did I say Christians (or any Christian for that matter) are supposed to hate non-Christians? And where do we supposedly cast them out of?



Just read the forums. The venom directed at homosexuals by self described Christians on here is awful. And, frankly, silly. So, I am asking you, as is the OP, why the special vitriol directed at them? 

Again, I see the problem here is the special attention homosexuality gets from Christians as, time and again, harming Christianity.


----------



## baydoll

PsyOps said:


> What sort of sin would be an unwilling sin?  If you don't know you're sinning how can it be considered a sin.  But for the record, according to the bible, we are born sinners.



I agree, we are all born sinners. 

But those who want to follow God will do their upmost to please God and follow His commandments. That includes doing their upmost to give up the sins in their lives. 

Those who could give a hoot about following God are UNWILLING to give up ANY sin whatever the heck they are. And usually get very defensive whenever this topic is bought up.


----------



## baydoll

Larry Gude said:


> Just read the forums. The venom directed at homosexuals by self described Christians on here is awful. And, frankly, silly. So, I am asking you, as is the OP, why the special vitriol directed at them?
> 
> Again, I see the problem here is the special attention homosexuality gets from Christians as, time and again, harming Christianity.



I agree with you. I think it's awful too. 

And I haven't a clue why some act this way...why don't you ask them? 

As for me, I don't follow other "Christians",  I follow Christ.  Jesus loved everyone no matter who or what they were and commanded His followers to do likewise. So if these so-called "Christians" are hating on Homosexuals then they are disobeying God. 

I think even if there wasn't any of this so-called 'special attention towards homosexuality from Christians' as you claim, I think you would STILL try and find something else that is 'wrong' with Christianity and Christians. 

Guaranteed


----------



## PsyOps

baydoll said:


> I agree, we are all born sinners.
> 
> But those who want to follow God will do their upmost to please God and follow His commandments. That includes doing their upmost to give up the sins in their lives.
> 
> Those who could give a hoot about following God are UNWILLING to give up ANY sin whatever the heck they are. And usually get very defensive whenever this topic is bought up.



I thought you were talking about people that know they are sinning (willing) vs. people that don't know they are sinning (unwilling).

But, good intentions die at the altar.  

“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” – Romans 3:23

The point is, we all sin.  It is a conscious act.  No one is exempt.  Some work hard at not sinning and some don’t.  Some don’t believe what they’re doing (gays) is sinful.  Short of our failures to stop sinning, we should acknowledge that we are flawed in this way and do the alternative – what Jesus did – reach out and show sinners that Christians are about love.  If that means baking a cake for a gay couple, always view it as an opportunity.


----------



## Zguy28

Larry Gude said:


> Just read the forums. The venom directed at homosexuals by self described Christians on here is awful. And, frankly, silly. So, I am asking you, as is the OP, why the special vitriol directed at them?
> 
> Again, I see the problem here is the special attention homosexuality gets from Christians as, time and again, harming Christianity.



I've always attributed the "special attention" to an old idiom "the squeaky wheel gets the grease."


----------



## MMDad

PsyOps said:


> Well, I can tell you there are NO guitar players who are gay.  NONE!  Larry, help me out here.


----------



## PsyOps

MMDad said:


> View attachment 103325



Faux guitar player.  Strumming and swinging your spandex jeans does not a guitar player make.


----------



## baydoll

Dakota said:


> I will expand on this.  Those who choose to be Christians understand that the commandments are for THEM... them as Christians... It is not for all who have not made the choice to be a Christian.  I think this is where the wires get crossed and Christians think they must convert all when the best way to convert anyone to God's side is to practice and to live within the word.  Christians should not go forth and play judge and jury to people that have not chosen to be a Christian because when they do, they will do more damage than any sinner will ever do.
> 
> The Christian faith is a great place for Narcissistic and Psychopaths to set up shop.  What better place to feed your ego?



Wow and are you not judging Christians right now by your very sweeping generalizations of all Christians, Dakota? 

I agree that there are a LOT of Christians out there who are judgemental BUT they're disobeying God by doing so. 

There are also a LOT of Christians who aren't judgemental. Please don't judge us all for the bad behavior of some.


----------



## MMDad

PsyOps said:


> Some don’t believe what they’re doing (gays) is sinful.



Many do. They are conflicted about it. They know they are gay, yet they believe it is a sin. They can't make themselves stop being gay any more than you could stop yourself from being hetero (assuming you are). That's one of many reasons that the suicide rate is high among gays.

I think that the "choosing" to be gay aspect of this is very relevant. If you see this as merely being a choice, and not being something that is hard wired into their brain, then it's easier to dismiss the "sinner" as being weak and worthy of disdain. But if it is something that they cannot control and cannot change, they would be deserving of compassion.

I know that the thought of gay sex is repulsive to me, and I could never "choose" to be gay. I did not choose to be straight, it is what I am. I assume most straight guys feel the same. So why is it that we cannot understand that gays also don't choose to be that way?


----------



## MMDad

PsyOps said:


> Faux guitar player.  Strumming and swinging your spandex jeans does not a guitar player make.



Now you did it. No reason to insult Larry like that!


----------



## PsyOps

MMDad said:


> Now you did it. No reason to insult Larry like that!



Naw... I've heard Larry's playing.  He can play.  

The only song I'm aware of by Michael is 'Faith' where he appears to be faking playing the guitar.  And my recollect of Michael is that he swings both ways.  So he's a faux gay as well as a faux guitar player.


----------



## baydoll

PsyOps said:


> I thought you were talking about people that know they are sinning (willing) vs. people that don't know they are sinning (unwilling).
> 
> But, good intentions die at the altar.
> 
> “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” – Romans 3:23
> 
> The point is, we all sin.  It is a conscious act.  No one is exempt.  Some work hard at not sinning and some don’t.  Some don’t believe what they’re doing (gays) is sinful.  Short of our failures to stop sinning, we should acknowledge that we are flawed in this way and do the alternative – what Jesus did – reach out and show sinners that Christians are about love.  If that means baking a cake for a gay couple, always view it as an opportunity.



Oh I agree. I've got a gay son whom I love very much. He also has many gay friends whom I also love. I think they're wonderful, kind, funny, loving people (the ones I know anyway). It's only a small  minority of them that want to shove their 'agenda' down everybody's elses throat that the Christian population has a problem with.


----------



## PsyOps

MMDad said:


> Many do. They are conflicted about it.



That's why I said 'some'.


----------



## Makavide

Toxick said:


> Old testament laws do not apply to Christians. They're in the bible for Canon and Archival Purposes, however Jesus superseded them in the New Covenant.





> Matthew 5 : 17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.  18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.  19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.  20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.



So the laws were not abolished, just that we are not the judges and should not be casting the stones....


A Painstaking But Concise Exposition of Matthew 5:17-19


----------



## Larry Gude

Zguy28 said:


> I've always attributed the "special attention" to an old idiom "the squeaky wheel gets the grease."



I get that but, if it ain't your wheel, what would one care??? 

Again, this is simple for me; born and raised in the flower biz, been around gay folks my whole life and don't understand ANY of the over heated negative reactions to gay folks. Don't understand how anyone claiming to be a conservative could support using the US Constitution to ban gay marriage and will never understand how on earth baking a cake, what I do for a living, for some gays folks would be an assault on MY faith. That speaks either to some shaky faith or some extreme views that, again, harm the faith rather than support it. In my view.


----------



## Larry Gude

PsyOps said:


> Naw... I've heard Larry's playing.  He can play.
> 
> The only song I'm aware of by Michael is 'Faith' where he appears to be faking playing the guitar.  And my recollect of Michael is that he swings both ways.  So he's a faux gay as well as a faux guitar player.



Guys like him ALSO play guitar. Prince, Freddy, etc. But, they're not guitar players by trade.


----------



## Hank

Larry Gude said:


> Guys like him ALSO play guitar. Prince, Freddy, etc. But, they're not guitar players by trade.



Prince is not gay.


----------



## Dakota

baydoll said:


> Wow and are you not judging Christians right now by your very sweeping generalizations of all Christians, Dakota?
> 
> I agree that there are a LOT of Christians out there who are judgemental BUT they're disobeying God by doing so.
> 
> There are also a LOT of Christians who aren't judgemental. Please don't judge us all for the bad behavior of some.



I meant the Christians acting in the capacity to redeem the world with spewing hate, as in the Christians Christy mentions in her 1st posting... I meant no generalizations to all what-so-ever just some.


----------



## PsyOps

Larry Gude said:


> Guys like him ALSO play guitar. Prince, Freddy, etc. But, they're not guitar players by trade.



I don't think Prince is gay.  But Freddie and Prince are about as close to *real* musicians as you can get.  They wrote some great music and could play.  Freddie was multi-instrumental, which is always an impressive thing to me.


----------



## Beta

Hank said:


> Prince is not gay.



Give him a hug and see if you catch the "gheybug"



I have to say, there have been some redeeming posts in here.  That being said, the people who say they "love" their gay friends and family but tell those people that they don't support their lifestyles and offer to "pray" for them are the people directly contributing to their suicides.  How would you feel if your parents, siblings, and close friends all said your life is filled with sin and you're going to hell, even though you can't control who you are?  For shame.


----------



## Zguy28

Makavide said:


> So the laws were not abolished, just that we are not the judges and should not be casting the stones....
> 
> 
> A Painstaking But Concise Exposition of Matthew 5:17-19


Its interesting, but I was just doing a personal study on Leviticus, which is where God's laws regarding sexual morality/immorality are largely contained. In it, God lists all kinds of sexual prohibitions that are part of His covenant with Israel. Among these is a prohibition against homosexuality. Now, many say that Levitical laws no longer apply to anybody, since they were for Israel, but I disagree on classifying the entire book that way. In the section on sexual morality, God tells Moses that because of these sins (including the "abomination" of homosexuality), He abhorred those who practice them (Gentile pagans). If He abhorred them and considered them unholy for everybody then, and God does not change regarding His nature and holiness, it follows that He feels the same way now as well.


----------



## Zguy28

Larry Gude said:


> I get that but, if it ain't your wheel, what would one care???
> 
> Again, this is simple for me; born and raised in the flower biz, been around gay folks my whole life and don't understand ANY of the over heated negative reactions to gay folks. Don't understand how anyone claiming to be a conservative could support using the US Constitution to ban gay marriage and will never understand how on earth baking a cake, what I do for a living, for some gays folks would be an assault on MY faith. That speaks either to some shaky faith or some extreme views that, again, harm the faith rather than support it. In my view.


It might not be my wheel, but as citizens of the US, its our cart too.


----------



## Hank

Beta said:


> Give him a hug and see if you catch the "gheybug"
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say, there have been some redeeming posts in here.  That being said, the people who say they "love" their gay friends and family but tell those people that they don't support their lifestyles and offer to "pray" for them are the people directly contributing to their suicides.  How would you feel if your parents, siblings, and close friends all said your life is filled with sin and you're going to hell, even though you can't control who you are?  For shame.



Bunch of religious zealot hypocrites.


----------



## PsyOps

Beta said:


> I have to say, there have been some redeeming posts in here.  That being said, the people who say they "love" their gay friends and family but tell those people that they don't support their lifestyles and offer to "pray" for them are the people directly contributing to their suicides.  How would you feel if your parents, siblings, and close friends all said your life is filled with sin and you're going to hell, even though you can't control who you are?  For shame.



That’s just nonsense.  I don’t have to agree with every living thing in this world simply out of fear that not doing so might contribute to someone’s suicide.


----------



## Hank

PsyOps said:


> That&rsquo;s just nonsense.  I don&rsquo;t have to agree with every living thing in this world simply out of fear that not doing so might contribute to someone&rsquo;s suicide.



Nah. You are just fake. Rock on with your fake self!


----------



## Beta

PsyOps said:


> That’s just nonsense.  I don’t have to agree with every living thing in this world simply out of fear that not doing so might contribute to someone’s suicide.



You don't have to agree with them, but you also don't have to call them damn dirty apes that are going to hell.  Where do you get off thinking you have a say in everyone's life?  What happened to simply loving your neighbor?  If someone chooses to smoke, whatever (just don't blow smoke in people's faces).  If someone is gay, whatever (just don't pass the "gheybug").  What's the difference?  You don't tell smokers that they're immoral and going to hell and that you'll pray for them.  Why do people have to spout hatred?  Just be nice to people...it's easier than you'd think.


----------



## Hank

Beta said:


> You don't have to agree with them, but you also don't have to call them damn dirty apes that are going to hell.  Where do you get off thinking you have a say in everyone's life?  What happened to simply loving your neighbor?  If someone chooses to smoke, whatever (just don't blow smoke in people's faces).  If someone is gay, whatever (just don't pass the "gheybug").  What's the difference?  You don't tell smokers that they're immoral and going to hell and that you'll pray for them.  Why do people have to spout hatred?  Just be nice to people...it's easier than you'd think.



The classic part is that he is nice to their face, but then talks crap about how immoral they are behind their back. Gotta love fake people!


----------



## Zguy28

Hank said:


> The classic part is that he is nice to their face, but then talks crap about how immoral they are behind their back. Gotta love fake people!



Wait, so either a person is "hateful" for telling a person that homosexuality is immoral to their face (Beta's position), or they are "fake" for not saying anything to their face, but only "behind their back" as you put it (Your position). These are contradictory positions. 

Oh wait, I get it, nobody's allowed to say anything at all negative about homosexuality. Ever. Gotcha. 

Its my bad, I forgot this is Canada.


----------



## Hank

Zguy28 said:


> Wait, so either a person is "hateful" for telling a person that homosexuality is immoral to their face (Beta's position), or they are "fake" for not saying anything to their face, but only "behind their back" as you put it (Your position). These are contradictory positions.
> 
> Oh wait, I get it, nobody's allowed to say anything at all negative about homosexuality. Ever. Gotcha.
> 
> Its my bad, I forgot this is Canada.



If you are nice to someone to their face and talk chit behind their back, yes, that's fake..... You're doing good!


----------



## Chris0nllyn

View attachment 103327


----------



## Hank

Chris0nllyn said:


> View attachment 103327


----------



## Larry Gude

Hank said:


> Prince is not gay.



He is also gay.


----------



## Larry Gude

Zguy28 said:


> It might not be my wheel, but as citizens of the US, its our cart too.



Good 'un!!!  I think I meant deal but, that works!


----------



## Larry Gude

Zguy28 said:


> Wait, so either a person is "hateful" for telling a person that homosexuality is immoral to their face  .



OK, but, if you are gay and I am a devout Christian and you are not seeking to join my church nor even claim to be a Christian, what business or care is it of mine unless I don't believe in religious and individual freedom including the religious and individual freedom that allows me to choose to be a devout Christian?

It might be more honest for me to say "I am not for religious freedom. I want everyone to believe as I do" and be done with it. Yes?


----------



## czygvtwkr

Larry Gude said:


> OK, but, if you are gay and I am a devout Christian and you are not seeking to join my church nor even claim to be a Christian, what business or care is it of mine unless I don't believe in religious and individual freedom including the religious and individual freedom that allows me to choose to be a devout Christian?
> 
> It might be more honest for me to say "I am not for religious freedom. I want everyone to believe as I do" and be done with it. Yes?



That is exactly what it is,  most don't even realize it or will admit it if they do.


----------



## b23hqb

Larry Gude said:


> OK, but, if you are gay and I am a devout Christian and you are not seeking to join my church nor even claim to be a Christian, what business or care is it of mine unless I don't believe in religious and individual freedom including the religious and individual freedom that allows me to choose to be a devout Christian? Yes?



Misguided attempt at twisted logic with a triple negative.

It would be more honest and logical for you to say "I am a devout homosexual. I am not for religious freedom, because I insist that everyone believe as I do, and if you don't, be done with it. Or I'll see you in court."

As far as devout Christianity, that starts and ends with the Bible, and one's individual choice to follow it or ignore it.


----------



## Larry Gude

b23hqb said:


> As far as devout Christianity, that starts and ends with the Bible, and one's individual choice to follow it or ignore it.



So, you disagree with the point and then agree.


----------



## b23hqb

Larry Gude said:


> So, you disagree with the point and then agree.



Nope. Disagree with your point. The last sentence of my post speaks for itself. Your homosexual communi-tuh! does not allow for anyone to be a devout Christian, *based on the Word of God*, that disagrees with the homosexual agenda.

Key phrase there, dude.


----------



## Larry Gude

b23hqb said:


> Nope. Disagree with your point. The last sentence of my post speaks for itself. Your homosexual communi-tuh! does not allow for anyone to be a devout Christian, *based on the Word of God*, that disagrees with the homosexual agenda.
> 
> Key phrase there, dude.



It's not my community. I'm telling you what your community is doing wrong to harm the faith and, like the Word of God, you can take it as you please. I think the results speak for themselves. This guy and his cake makes good, sincere people look like kooks.


----------



## b23hqb

Larry Gude said:


> It's not my community. I'm telling you what your community is doing wrong to harm the faith and, like the Word of God, you can take it as you please. I think the results speak for themselves. This guy and his cake makes good, sincere people look like kooks.



What is your faith, LG?What is your testimony?  Mine has been put out previously. Let's hear your testimony, OK? Take as long as you need.

It is your communi-tuh. Live like the homosexual brother you are. My community simply follows what the Word says. I have no idea what you follow, except for your apologetics for your communi-tuh!


----------



## Larry Gude

b23hqb said:


> What is your faith, LG? Mine has been put out previously. Let's hear your testimony, OK? Take as long as you need.
> 
> It is your communi-tuh. Live like the homosexual brother you are. My community simply follows what the Word says. I have no idea what you follow, except for your apologetics for your communi-tuh!



Christened as a child. I'm an agnostic. I know I don't know. I think gay marriage is silly but, it's their business, not mine. I think it outrageous that 'conservatives' would seek to use the Constitution to ban it. I think when you try something like that, you should expect them to fight back. I think gays would make good allies on a lot of issues if the right would stop acting like they are some sort of special sinners worthy of scorn. 

:shrug:


----------



## Zguy28

Larry Gude said:


> OK, but, if you are gay and I am a devout Christian and you are not seeking to join my church nor even claim to be a Christian, what business or care is it of mine unless I don't believe in religious and individual freedom including the religious and individual freedom that allows me to choose to be a devout Christian?
> 
> It might be more honest for me to say "I am not for religious freedom. I want everyone to believe as I do" and be done with it. Yes?


I'm trying to figure out what this actually says...

Anyway, perhaps you misinterpret my attempts at clarification on people's reasoning as support for legislation against gays or something? I do believe it is a perversion and sin. I don't believe it should be legislated against based on Christian doctrine. What have I to do with what those outside the church do? If they want to engage in what God calls sin, that's their choice, and they will face the judgment for that like any other choice.


----------



## Radiant1

b23hqb said:


> It is your communi-tuh. Live like the homosexual brother you are. My community simply follows what the Word says. I have no idea what you follow, except for your apologetics for your communi-tuh!



Why do you type (or say) community like that?


----------



## b23hqb

Larry Gude said:


> Christened as a child. I'm an agnostic. I know I don't know. I think gay marriage is silly but, it's their business, not mine. I think it outrageous that 'conservatives' would seek to use the Constitution to ban it. I think when you try something like that, you should expect them to fight back. I think gays would make good allies on a lot of issues if the right would stop acting like they are some sort of special sinners worthy of scorn.
> 
> :shrug:



Christened? You mean your head was sprinkled? Your hair got a little wet? And you have no conscience remembrance of what that scene was about?

Every one of us is worthy of scorn. Those that promote "in your face worthlessness" like your communi-tuh! will be dealt with in the same manner as anyone that rejects God.

Anyone else that recognizes their worthlessness in the face of of the Holy and Just God, and receives His grace and mercy of salvation, from the work of his Son on the accursed cross, His burial, and His resurrection, is freed from that condemnation.

Yeah:shrug:

You don't have any idea about what salvation is. Go ahead and argue for a position, but it is stupid to argue against a position your are clueless about. I don't think you are stupid. Do some research on my position, rather than just spouting off against what you know nothing of.

Check it out, please.


----------



## RoseRed

Radiant1 said:


> Why do you type (or say) community like that?



He sounds like Cartman.


----------



## b23hqb

Radiant1 said:


> Why do you type (or say) community like that?



I say that simply from total respect (or not) from the local St Pete leadership of the Uhuru pronunciation of the word, and taken up by the not so right Rev Al Sharpton and Jessee Jackson.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Uhuru-Solidarity-Movement-St-Petersburg/188500667858647

Other than that, the tuh! rocks!

When you see me type "po-leece" the reason is the same.


----------



## Radiant1

RoseRed said:


> He sounds like Cartman.



Is Cartman a condescending or pretentious jerk?


----------



## ProximaCentauri

b23hqb said:


> Christened? You mean your head was sprinkled? Your hair got a little wet? And you have no conscience remembrance of what that scene was about?
> 
> Every one of us is worthy of scorn. Those that promote "in your face worthlessness" like your communi-tuh! will be dealt with in the same manner as anyone that rejects God.
> 
> Anyone else that recognizes their worthlessness in the face of of the Holy and Just God, and receives His grace and mercy of salvation, from the work of his Son on the accursed cross, His burial, and His resurrection, is freed from that condemnation.
> 
> Yeah:shrug:
> 
> You don't have any idea about what salvation is. Go ahead and argue for a position, but it is stupid to argue against a position your are clueless about. I don't think you are stupid. Do some research on my position, rather than just spouting off against what you know nothing of.
> 
> Check it out, please.



That's some nice preach-en. But Jim Jefferies says it better in 'God goes to a party'. Oh, and God expresses his views on gays around the 3:00 min mark, seems to fit with your views...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9GOGY9Nh4M


----------



## Toxick

Radiant1 said:


> Is Cartman a condescending or pretentious jerk?





ObBoole: Yes.


----------



## Hank

Larry Gude said:


> He is also gay.



Nope. Hardcore, Jehovah's Witness.


----------



## PsyOps

Larry Gude said:


> OK, but, if you are gay and I am a devout Christian and you are not seeking to join my church nor even claim to be a Christian, *what business or care is it of mine* unless I don't believe in religious and individual freedom including the religious and individual freedom that allows me to choose to be a devout Christian?
> 
> It might be more honest for me to say "I am not for religious freedom. I want everyone to believe as I do" and be done with it. Yes?



It’s a Christian’s charge to spread the Gospel.  :shrug:


----------



## czygvtwkr

PsyOps said:


> It’s a Christian’s charge to spread the Gospel.  :shrug:



That has a very broad interpretation.


----------



## GURPS

Vince said:


> Catholic and I don't hate gays, etc.  I don't think they are correct, but I don't hate them.  Their problem, not mine.  *Just quit shoving your gay agenda in my face.* :shrug:


----------



## GURPS

Christy said:


> .... however this particular sin tends to make people lose their minds.





and in the 1950's what was said about the girl in the next town over that got knocked up ?

or in the 1920's about a man that promised to marry a girl, just take advantage of her ...


----------



## GURPS

Christy said:


> If so, how often are you successful and how often do you fall short?





all have sined and fall short of the glory of G_D


----------



## MMDad

b23hqb said:


> Christened? You mean your head was sprinkled? Your hair got a little wet? And you have no conscience remembrance of what that scene was about?
> 
> Every one of us is worthy of scorn. Those that promote "in your face worthlessness" like your communi-tuh! will be dealt with in the same manner as anyone that rejects God.
> 
> Anyone else that recognizes their worthlessness in the face of of the Holy and Just God, and receives His grace and mercy of salvation, from the work of his Son on the accursed cross, His burial, and His resurrection, is freed from that condemnation.
> 
> Yeah:shrug:
> 
> You don't have any idea about what salvation is. Go ahead and argue for a position, but it is stupid to argue against a position your are clueless about. I don't think you are stupid. Do some research on my position, rather than just spouting off against what you know nothing of.
> 
> Check it out, please.



Wow, what a pompous ass you are. That's why nobody wants to tell you what they believe. You asked, he answered honestly, and you belittled his past and damned him to hell. Good job, if your goal is to drive as many people away from God as possible.


----------



## MMDad

GURPS said:


> all have sined and fall short of the glory of G_D



Not me, I tangented.


----------



## RoseRed

Radiant1 said:


> Is Cartman a condescending or pretentious jerk?



Yes.   But his excuse is that he is an obnoxious preteen cartoon character.


----------



## GURPS

Christy said:


> I think homosexuals, transgenders etc.. do themselves a huge disservice by constantly trying to cram their agenda down everyone's throats.  I believe everyone should live and let live, but I will admit to finding it incredibly irritating to be accused of bigotry and being closed minded for being offended by what goes on at many gay pride events.  I am also annoyed with every new television show incorporating a gay person.  It is maddening.  Not because I'm opposed to gays, but really, who cares?


----------



## Hank

GURPS said:


> all have sined and fall short of the glory of G_D



Are you a Jew?


----------



## czygvtwkr

MMDad said:


> Wow, what a pompous ass you are. That's why nobody wants to tell you what they believe. You asked, he answered honestly, and you belittled his past and damned him to hell. Good job, if your goal is to drive as many people away from God as possible.



You missed the part about having to be a douche bag to be saved in sunday school?


----------



## Hank

b23hqb said:


> Christened? You mean your head was sprinkled? Your hair got a little wet? And you have no conscience remembrance of what that scene was about?
> 
> Every one of us is worthy of scorn. Those that promote "in your face worthlessness" like your communi-tuh! will be dealt with in the same manner as anyone that rejects God.
> 
> Anyone else that recognizes their worthlessness in the face of of the Holy and Just God, and receives His grace and mercy of salvation, from the work of his Son on the accursed cross, His burial, and His resurrection, is freed from that condemnation.
> 
> Yeah:shrug:
> 
> You don't have any idea about what salvation is. Go ahead and argue for a position, but it is stupid to argue against a position your are clueless about. I don't think you are stupid. Do some research on my position, rather than just spouting off against what you know nothing of.
> 
> Check it out, please.



I bet you typed this with a big penis in your mouth?


----------



## MMDad

czygvtwkr said:


> You missed the part about having to be a douche bag to be saved in sunday school?



Nope, I heard that loud and clear. That's why I reject religion. I have faith, but religion sucks.


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Zguy28 said:


> Its interesting, but I was just doing a personal study on Leviticus, which is where God's laws regarding sexual morality/immorality are largely contained. In it, God lists all kinds of sexual prohibitions that are part of His covenant with Israel. Among these is a prohibition against homosexuality. Now, many say that Levitical laws no longer apply to anybody, since they were for Israel, but I disagree on classifying the entire book that way. In the section on sexual morality, God tells Moses that because of these sins (including the "abomination" of homosexuality), He abhorred those who practice them (Gentile pagans). If He abhorred them and considered them unholy for everybody then, and God does not change regarding His nature and holiness, it follows that He feels the same way now as well.



The 'Godly' folks at Westboro Baptist agree with you, and prefer to use one of the most vile books (Leviticus) as justification for their views as well. Sounds like you would fit right in, if you aren't already a member...

http://www.godhatesfags.com/


----------



## b23hqb

LarryGude - Been thinking about my last post. I don't apologize for what I said, but I certainly apologize for the way I came across, and could/should have said it in a more diplomatic fashion and not come across that strongly. I had been in and out all day clearing 500' of fence line, alternating between hot, sunny 90 degrees, then rain on and off, so I was a bit tired, sweaty, wet, and grumpy. We are all sinners, fall short of the glory of God, and there is only one way to get out of that downward spiral. That way does not include supporting and defending the practicing of a sin, in this case homosexuality, no matter if is supposedly hurting anyone or not.

But before anyone calls themselves "Christian", myself included, a self examination compared to what the scriptures say about it is the only way to realize it as the means to an end. The Bible is the best answer to the Bible. It is what it is, and means what it says.

So I'll try my best to cool down in the future before addressing responses and word them more diplomatically.


----------



## PsyOps

czygvtwkr said:


> That has a very broad interpretation.



Absolutely!  There are some that decide it their cause to start a church.  Some choose to go to military or college dorms.  Some go knocking people's doors.  Some walk right to folks on the street.  I'm the more passive type.  I'm not the 'shove it down your throat' type.  When an opportunity comes up for me to talk about it I will.  If a gay person walks up to me and asks what I think about homosexuality, the first thing I might say is 'don't ask a question you aren't fully prepared to hear my thoughts on'; then I will talk.  The last thing I want to do though is reject them as a person, and offend and demean them.


----------



## migtig

The Annapolis Westfield Mall is absolutely fabulous for gay watching.  :shrug:


----------



## hotcoffee

PsyOps said:


> Absolutely!  There are some that decide it their cause to start a church.  Some choose to go to military or college dorms.  Some go knocking people's doors.  Some walk right to folks on the street.  I'm the more passive type.  I'm not the 'shove it down your throat' type.  When an opportunity comes up for me to talk about it I will.  If a gay person walks up to me and asks what I think about homosexuality, the first thing I might say is 'don't ask a question you aren't fully prepared to hear my thoughts on'; then I will talk.  The last thing I want to do though is reject them as a person, and offend and demean them.



This actually happened to me.  I was on my way back to the metro after seeing my doctor in DC.  A gay rights group was walking up to people and asking people if they could give them a handout.  I said I would the handout if she would allow me to tell her about my Lord.  She agreed.  I told her that Jesus loves her and that He died for her sins.  She asked if I believed that God would accept her into heaven even tho she was a practicing gay who never believed in Jesus.  I told her no.  She asked me why.  I asked her.... if Jesus was you son, who did nothing wrong his whole life, and people who didn't believe in him nailed him to a cross until he was dead... would she be a benevolent host to the people who continued on their way after doing that?  She forgot to give me that hand out.


----------



## Radiant1

b23hqb said:


> LarryGude - Been thinking about my last post. I don't apologize for what I said, but I certainly apologize for the way I came across, and could/should have said it in a more diplomatic fashion and not come across that strongly.


----------



## Larry Gude

Hank said:


> Nope. Hardcore, Jehovah's Witness.



Prince. Dresses like a woman. Lipstick. Eye shadow. He's at least a carrier.    LOL


----------



## Larry Gude

PsyOps said:


> It’s a Christian’s charge to spread the Gospel.  :shrug:



That's fine. However, square that with religious freedom. Many Christians are God, country, family. I am country first because ONLY the United States of America can stand as THE cornerstone of individual freedom and liberty on this planet.


----------



## Zguy28

ProximaCentauri said:


> The 'Godly' folks at Westboro Baptist agree with you, and prefer to use one of the most vile books (Leviticus) as justification for their views as well. Sounds like you would fit right in, if you aren't already a member...
> 
> http://www.godhatesfags.com/


It takes one to know doesn't it? Are you a theophobe? Why do you hate religious people?


----------



## Larry Gude

Zguy28 said:


> I'm trying to figure out what this actually says...
> 
> Anyway, perhaps you misinterpret my attempts at clarification on people's reasoning as support for legislation against gays or something? I do believe it is a perversion and sin. I don't believe it should be legislated against based on Christian doctrine. What have I to do with what those outside the church do? If they want to engage in what God calls sin, that's their choice, and they will face the judgment for that like any other choice.



Good job!


----------



## Larry Gude

b23hqb said:


> ...like your communi-tuh!  .



Why do you keep saying that? I'm not gay. I'm not black. I'm not a woman. I'm not a Jew or a Muslim. Or even Oriental but, I do believe we are all created equal by our creator, whomever or whatever that may be. And I expect that if I were to be hostile to gays or blacks or whomever, they'd likely be hostile right back.


----------



## Larry Gude

b23hqb said:


> You don't have any idea about what salvation is. Go ahead and argue for a position, but it is stupid to argue against a position your are clueless about. I don't think you are stupid. Do some research on my position, rather than just spouting off against what you know nothing of.
> 
> Check it out, please.



What part of 'agnostic' don't you understand? My personal religious journey has resulted in believing the bible is a community organizing handbook, not the word of God or a god. That does not stop me from being humble enough to be able to conceive of being wrong, that there is THE one true God and I am good with people who believe. It is every bit as likely that there is than that there is not. However, I am also able to conceive of mass and energy and elements and no plan and am good with folks who don't believe. I try not to be antagonistic about it and I am damn sure in the trenches with the Christians when the Muslims come. And that's my REAL beef; devout Christians, in my view, are causing us to lose to Islam.


----------



## baydoll

Dakota said:


> I meant the Christians acting in the capacity to redeem the world with spewing hate, as in the Christians Christy mentions in her 1st posting... I meant no generalizations to all what-so-ever just some.





I will expand on this. Those who choose to be Non- Christians understand that the Christians should keep their mouths shut ..   and woe to those Christians who dares to believe/say otherwise. I think this is where the wires get crossed and Non-Christians think Christians must shut the hello up or risk being labeled as 'Hateful Bigots' and 'spewing hate'. 

Self-Righteous Non-Christians should not go forth and play judge and jury to people that have not chosen to follow them or the rest of the world because when they do, they do more damage than any Christian could ever do. 

The Non- Christian 'faith' is a great place for Narcissistic and Psychopaths to set up shop. What better place to feed your ego?

PS: I meant no generalization to all what-so-ever just some too.


----------



## Zguy28

Larry Gude said:


> What part of 'agnostic' don't you understand? My personal religious journey has resulted in believing the bible is a community organizing handbook, not the word of God or a god. That does not stop me from being humble enough to be able to conceive of being wrong, that there is THE one true God and I am good with people who believe. It is every bit as likely that there is than that there is not. However, I am also able to conceive of mass and energy and elements and no plan and am good with folks who don't believe. I try not to be antagonistic about it and I am damn sure in the trenches with the Christians when the Muslims come. And that's my REAL beef; devout Christians, in my view, are causing us to lose to Islam.



What do you mean "lose to Islam"?


----------



## migtig

As I understand it, it is a Christian doctrine to go forth and spread the word of G-d.  

So therefore, if they dare to share the word of G-d, then they are labeled bigots, haters, etc.  

Once they share the word of G-d, if the sinner refuses to beleive, the Christians duty is to pray for thier soul to hope that the sinner sees the light of salvation before it's too late.  

That's not meant to be offensive, but it is taken as such.

You can't deny what the bible says, so if you believe, you believe.  If the bible says homosexuality is a sin (which it does), then it's a sin.  :shrug:  To be told the truth of one's beliefs shouldn't constitute the "sinner" being offended.  But the sinners always are.  Any sinner who hasn't repented is always offended when confronted with the words from the bible.  

Therefore, the bible is offensive, and all who believe in it are offensive, oppressive, jerkwads, etc.  

You either accept the bible or you don't.  And you either accept that you are a sinner or not.  

It sums up to sinners, all sinners, who become offended when they are confronted with the truth of their sin.  That causes anger and outrage on behalf of the sinner.  

So basically, the truth hurts.  

That's why there is such angst.


----------



## vraiblonde

migtig said:


> Any sinner who hasn't repented is always offended when *confronted *with the words from the bible.



The bolded word is the problem.  When some stranger tells you you're going to hell and condemned for life, oh and PS you are a sexual deviant, I can understand how that might piss someone off.  I thought the idea was to spread the Good News, not make a bunch of value judgments that aren't your job anyway.



> So basically, the truth hurts.



Right, but the Bible isn't *the* truth - it's only *your* truth.  You can pray for someone's soul all you like, but you're supposed to be doing that in private between you and God, not spewing it on the street corners like, "See me?  See what a good Christian I am? Yay me!"  Self-righteous pride is a sin, specifically named as one of the seven deadly.

"You", of course, is not you personally Migtig, but you in general.


----------



## Larry Gude

Zguy28 said:


> What do you mean "lose to Islam"?



Since 9/11, Islam has been in ascendency, globally. Bin Laden got us to turn on ourselves and enrich Muslim nations far beyond the $30 a barrel economy of pre 9/11. Iraq has gone from a secular lead nation to non secular (Muslim). Another secular nation, Syria, is in trouble of also becoming non secular (Muslim). And Barack H. Obama is president of the United States of America. 

Worse yet, instead of more moderate Shia, those nations are trending Sunni, a more militant segment of Islam. Worse than that, Wahabi Sunni. 

Throw in Afghanistan which, hopefully, will be more Taliban and less Sunni. 
Throw in instability in Pakistan.


George W. Bush, born again Christian, lead us off to the 4th crusade and we're losing.


----------



## b23hqb

PsyOps said:


> Absolutely!  There are some that decide it their cause to start a church.  Some choose to go to military or college dorms.  Some go knocking people's doors.  Some walk right to folks on the street.  I'm the more passive type.  I'm not the 'shove it down your throat' type.  When an opportunity comes up for me to talk about it I will.  If a gay person walks up to me and asks what I think about homosexuality, the first thing I might say is 'don't ask a question you aren't fully prepared to hear my thoughts on'; then I will talk.  The last thing I want to do though is reject them as a person, and offend and demean them.



Well stated. I am of the same mindset of not offending people, or getting in their face, and when I do, I will apologize, like I did last night to LarryGude. I'll stand by my words, but I sure could have presented them less bluntly.


----------



## b23hqb

Larry Gude said:


> Since 9/11, Islam has been in ascendency, globally. Bin Laden got us to turn on ourselves and enrich Muslim nations far beyond the $30 a barrel economy of pre 9/11. Iraq has gone from a secular lead nation to non secular (Muslim). Another secular nation, Syria, is in trouble of also becoming non secular (Muslim). And Barack H. Obama is president of the United States of America.
> 
> Worse yet, instead of more moderate Shia, those nations are trending Sunni, a more militant segment of Islam. Worse than that, Wahabi Sunni.
> 
> Throw in Afghanistan which, hopefully, will be more Taliban and less Sunni.
> Throw in instability in Pakistan.
> 
> 
> George W. Bush, born again Christian, lead us off to the 4th crusade and we're losing.



LG - I'm sorry for the way I came across in responding to you yesterday. I sure could have worded it in a better and kinder fashion, so I do humbly apologize.

I think "the 4th crusade" is over the top, but I do recall watching the TV at work as the towers fell and making the comment then that "We're at war, and it isn't going to end", and recall some of the retorts by some co-workers that essentially called me crazy. Yeah.


----------



## onel0126

Reading this thread over the past two days really made me think of this:


----------



## vraiblonde

onel0126 said:


> Reading this thread over the past two days really made me think of this:



But do you not believe those words are important?

God is the judge, not you.  When you judge, you're basically saying you can do His job better than He can.  My understanding, and I can back it up with any number of Bible passages, is that you're supposed to be worrying about your own self, not trying to micromanage God.


----------



## Radiant1

migtig said:


> It sums up to sinners, all sinners, who become offended when they are confronted with the truth of their sin.  That causes anger and outrage on behalf of the sinner.
> 
> So basically, the truth hurts.
> 
> That's why there is such angst.



That doesn't explain why there is more vehemence against the sin of homosexuality as opposed to other sins, which was Christy's observation. Homosexuals are more maligned by Christians than Satanists are, and Satanists mock Christianity more than homosexuals do. So why are gays the poster children for "sin" and not say, murderers, adulterers, liars, or any other given sin?


----------



## PsyOps

Radiant1 said:


> That doesn't explain why there is more vehemence against the sin of homosexuality as opposed to other sins, which was Christy's observation. Homosexuals are more maligned by Christians than Satanists are, and Satanists mock Christianity more than homosexuals do. So why are gays the poster children for "sin" and not say, murderers, adulterers, liars, or any other given sin?



Actually I think abortion gets more attention over the long-term than this.  This just happens to be the issue of the day.  And I think Atheists mock Christians far more than Satanists.  Satanists seem largely quiet to me.


----------



## Toxick

Radiant1 said:


> That doesn't explain why there is more vehemence against the sin of homosexuality as opposed to other sins, which was Christy's observation. Homosexuals are more maligned by Christians than Satanists are, and Satanists mock Christianity more than homosexuals do. So why are gays the poster children for "sin" and not say, murderers, adulterers, liars, or any other given sin?





To answer your question, while avoiding value judgments in either direction:




Like everything else, it's the visibility of it. Overall, how visible - in media, the internets, and society as a whole - are Satanists? They're completely under the radar, and for all intents and purposes invisible to society at large. I do not think this is an accident. I have the feeling that if Satanists collectively attempted to "get out their message", as it were, they would be attacked _en masse_, not only by Christians, but also by Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Vodouisants, Hindus, Buddhists, along with righteous atheists and agnostics... they would be the one common enemy that all the other ones would side against, rather than squabbling amongst themselves.

Homosexuals, on the other hand, don dental-floss thongs, paint themselves rainbow colors, douse themselves in baby-oil and glitter, attach clothes-pins to their nipples, and march down the boulevards of major cities licking each others' tongues and grabbing each others' junk while Lady Gaga, Madonna, Rupaul and Skrillex are blared at maximum volume in Gay Pride events.



As far as Murderers, adulterers, liars, etc. They are condemned. However, nobody is prancing down the street with anatomically correct balloons singing and dancing for the acceptance of murder and rape.









By extension this is why abortion are vilified on the same level as homosexuals. Because you got people on TV and gathering in crowds chanting delightful mantras like "Stay out of my uterus".


----------



## mamatutu

Toxick said:


> To answer your question, while avoiding value judgments in either direction:
> 
> Like everything else, it's the visibility of it. Overall, how visible - in media, the internets, and society as a whole - are Satanists? They're completely under the radar, and for all intents and purposes invisible to society at large. I do not think this is an accident. I have the feeling that if Satanists collectively attempted to "get out their message", as it were, they would be attacked _en masse_, not only by Christians, but also by Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Vodouisants, Hindus, Buddhists, along with righteous atheists and agnostics... they would be the one common enemy that all the other ones would side against, rather than squabbling amongst themselves.
> 
> Homosexuals, on the other hand, don dental-floss thongs, paint themselves rainbow colors, douse themselves in baby-oil and glitter, attach clothes-pins to their nipples, and march down the boulevards of major cities licking each others' tongues and grabbing each others' junk while Lady Gaga, Madonna, Rupaul and Skrillex are blared at maximum volume in Gay Pride events.
> 
> As far as Murderers, adulterers, liars, etc. They are condemned. However, nobody is prancing down the street with anatomically correct balloons singing and dancing for the acceptance of murder and rape.
> 
> By extension this is why abortion are vilified on the same level as homosexuals. Because you got people on TV and gathering in crowds chanting delightful mantras like "Stay out of my uterus".



OMGeez, Tox.  You did it again.  Funny stuff!  I now expect, at least, one good belly laugh per day!


----------



## b23hqb

vraiblonde said:


> But do you not believe those words are important?
> 
> God is the judge, not you.  When you judge, you're basically saying you can do His job better than He can.  My understanding, and I can back it up with any number of Bible passages, is that you're supposed to be worrying about your own self, not trying to micromanage God.



What you said is true, but those words need to be placed in context. We are allowed, required actually, to judge others in respect to friendships, marriages, work etc. We have judges and juries to judge guilt or innocence in courts. We are told in the Bible to look for the visible fruits and actions of individuals, especially in our own churches or assemblies, in order to determine if the walk is right or need to issue training or discipline. Those are ways we need to judge others in order to really inwardly judge ourselves.

People who use the words "judge not" literally to never judge or determine something about somebody anytime are having a lapse of judgement.

The final judge will be God, of course, and every single soul will face him either willingly or kicking and screaming.


----------



## vraiblonde

Toxick said:


> Like everything else, it's the visibility of it. Overall, how visible - in media, the internets, and society as a whole - are Satanists? They're completely under the radar, and for all intents and purposes invisible to society at large. I do not think this is an accident. I have the feeling that if Satanists collectively attempted to "get out their message", as it were, they would be attacked _en masse_, not only by Christians, but also by Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Vodouisants, Hindus, Buddhists, along with righteous atheists and agnostics... they would be the one common enemy that all the other ones would side against, rather than squabbling amongst themselves.



This is what I was going to post but I couldn't get it to come together coherently.  

Nice summation!


----------



## vraiblonde

b23hqb said:


> Those are ways we need to judge others in order to really inwardly judge ourselves.



Exactly.  YOU believe that homosexuals are sinners; God says don't hang around with sinners; you do not hang around with homosexuals.  That is a valid judgment and in line with the teachings of Christianity.

Where it falls apart is when you vilify homosexuals or abuse them, making your beliefs their problem, instead of doing what Jesus said and worrying about the log in your own eye.  You can have an opinion or a belief; what you cannot do is force someone else to conform to your beliefs or consider yourself superior to them.  

Do I need to keep stating that "you" is not personal or can we assume that from now on?


----------



## Larry Gude

b23hqb said:


> LG - I'm sorry for the way I came across in responding to you yesterday. I sure could have worded it in a better and kinder fashion, so I do humbly apologize.
> 
> I think "the 4th crusade" is over the top, but I do recall watching the TV at work as the towers fell and making the comment then that "We're at war, and it isn't going to end", and recall some of the retorts by some co-workers that essentially called me crazy. Yeah.



No apology needed. You SHOULD be aggressive in support of your beliefs same as anyone else, gays, blacks, dirt bike riding/gun toting/heterosexual/agnostic/heavy metal red necks that like Vivaldi. 

I think 4th crusade is DEAD ON. Bush's mistake was not in going. It was in losing. There was NO way he could afford to leave the job undone and hope that someone who shared his ideas would see it through. He ####ed up so bad it is impossible to over state it. 

As for winning, simple. Bin Laden did what he had to do; get us to turn on himself, as he had no conventional chance in hell. We should return the favor. We can NOT conventionally defeat Islam. We CAN let it defeat itself as it has been doing for 100's of years as it declined from global dominance and leadership into infighting and self defeating squabbles. 

We can let them beat themselves but, we are too stubborn and too invested in admitting how wrong we were and back tracking and leaving them to their own pot holes and infrastructure and culture and health and food and so forth. 

Bush's mistake was not in going. It was in losing.


----------



## baydoll

Larry Gude said:


> No apology needed. You SHOULD be aggressive in support of your beliefs same as anyone else, gays, blacks, dirt bike riding/gun toting/heterosexual/agnostic/heavy metal red necks that like Vivaldi.





And that's exactly what the owner of that bakery was doing.  Thanks, Larry!


----------



## PsyOps

baydoll said:


> And that's exactly what the owner of that bakery was doing.  Thanks, Larry!



I think there's a difference between having an aggressive discussion and refusing to provide service.  Me telling you what I believe only through words has no effect on you, except that you choose listen or be offended.  Me refusing to serve you because of what I believe and what you believe is contrary to what Christ told us.  If Jesus acted that way, he wouldn’t have picked most of his disciples; he would have allowed the prostitute to be stoned to death; he wouldn’t have fed the 5,000.  He would have only fed those he agrees with.  I wonder how many gay people were in that 5000 on that mountain when he fed them fish and bread?  But Jesus did not worry about what he said and how it might offend someone.


----------



## Bird Dog

Radiant1 said:


> That doesn't explain why there is more vehemence against the sin of homosexuality as opposed to other sins, which was Christy's observation. Homosexuals are more maligned by Christians than Satanists are, and Satanists mock Christianity more than homosexuals do. So why are gays the poster children for "sin" and not say, murderers, adulterers, liars, or any other given sin?



The reason being murders, adulterer, liars, rapists, thieves, child porno freaks, etc. do not continue to shove down our throats, that their activities are ok and should be taught in our schools that it ok to do whatever activity they profess.


----------



## migtig

PsyOps said:


> I think there's a difference between having an aggressive discussion and refusing to provide service.  Me telling you what I believe only through words has no effect on you, except that you choose listen or be offended.  Me refusing to serve you because of what I believe and what you believe is contrary to what Christ told us.  If Jesus acted that way, he wouldn’t have picked most of his disciples; he would have allowed the prostitute to be stoned to death; he wouldn’t have fed the 5,000.  He would have only fed those he agrees with.  I wonder how many gay people were in that 5000 on that mountain when he fed them fish and bread?  But Jesus did not worry about what he said and how it might offend someone.



True that.  Jesus offended lots of people with his words.  

However, with the bakery owner, was he or she wrong to not want to support a gay marriage because it was against their belief system?  I can see their perspective.  Why should one be forced to act against their personal moral beliefs? :shrug:

Me personally, I think your business it's your choice on who you serve or don't serve. Unless it's a publically owned company.  I don't think the government is in the right on forcing you to serve customers you don't want to serve.  But that is a big government vs libertarian issue.  Not a religious one.


----------



## baydoll

PsyOps said:


> I think there's a difference between having an aggressive discussion and refusing to provide service.  Me telling you what I believe only through words has no effect on you, except that you choose listen or be offended.  Me refusing to serve you because of what I believe and what you believe is contrary to what Christ told us.  If Jesus acted that way, he wouldn’t have picked most of his disciples; he would have allowed the prostitute to be stoned to death; he wouldn’t have fed the 5,000.  He would have only fed those he agrees with.  I wonder how many gay people were in that 5000 on that mountain when he fed them fish and bread?  But Jesus did not worry about what he said and how it might offend someone.



I have no clue what you are going on about. 

You refusing to serve me because of what I serve you because of what you believe is contrary to what Christ told us? What?? !!!

If Jesus acted what way? You're equating someone who refused to bake a WEDDING CAKE for a gay couple's marriage for pete's sake to stoning a woman for prositution???!!! 

Good grief, man! 

Offend someone, how is not going along with the gay agenda offending someone? Oh that's right! It's not nice to offend ANYONE EXCEPT THOSE HYPOCRITICAL SELF RIGHTEOUS CHRISTIANS of course.


----------



## Beta

migtig said:


> So basically, the truth hurts.


Whose truth?  

My problem with the "spread the word of G-d" bit is that they only spread the parts they feel like sharing.  They're sinning themselves, yet still casting stones.  How is that spreading the word?


----------



## Hank

Beta said:


> Whose truth?
> 
> My problem with the "spread the word of G-d" bit is that they only spread the parts they feel like sharing.  They're sinning themselves, yet still casting stones.  How is that spreading the word?



Break the God Damn barrier, stop being a puss and spell it out!!!! GOD!


----------



## baydoll

Beta said:


> Whose truth?
> 
> they only spread the parts they feel like sharing.  They're sinning themselves, yet still casting stones.  How is that spreading the word?



So what 'words' are they not sharing, and what 'word' would you like them to spread?


----------



## baydoll

migtig said:


> True that.  Jesus offended lots of people with his words.
> 
> However, with the bakery owner, was he or she wrong to not want to support a gay marriage because it was against their belief system?  I can see their perspective.  Why should one be forced to act against their personal moral beliefs? :shrug:
> 
> Me personally, I think your business it's your choice on who you serve or don't serve. Unless it's a publically owned company.  I don't think the government is in the right on forcing you to serve customers you don't want to serve.  But that is a big government vs libertarian issue.  Not a religious one.



What she said.


----------



## migtig

Beta said:


> Whose truth?
> 
> My problem with the "spread the word of G-d" bit is that they only spread the parts they feel like sharing.  They're sinning themselves, yet still casting stones.  How is that spreading the word?



According to Christians, everybody is a sinner, including themselves.  But the way I understand it, in order to accept Jesus, you have to admit your sins and get right with G-d and if you can't admit to sinning, then you are a liar, which I think may be another sin.    Not sure about that one.  

Anyway, if I tell you Jesus loves you, but you gotta stop your sinning ways and make an honest woman of your girlfriend and get right with G-d, so you can go to your earthly reward, that shouldn't really offend you.  It's not casting stones.  It's telling the truth.  After all, as your friend, I love you and want you to go to heaven right?  

But it would offend you because you aren't Christian. You would consider me being intolerate of your "living in sin" situation, intolerant of your religious beliefs and so on and get mad and huffy and say "well you did it" and I'd say yep.     I'm a tad  but I think you get the point.  

Christians want you to admit your sins, accept G-d and Jesus as your personal savior, and then strive to be a better person by not commiting those same sins any more.  It's not casting stones as you say, but an honest effort to attempt to get you thinking about your wicked ways and how to turn your life around.

I've never met a true believer who has not admitted to being a sinner.  

See you have to listen to the Chrisitian message all the way through to get it.  I think a lot of people hear "I want to share the Good news with you" and they automatically shut down or become instantly offended and outraged instead of listening.  

That's the thing.  Lots of arguments and disagreements would NEVER occur if humans actually listened instead of instantly reacting. :shrug:


----------



## Beta

Hank said:


> Break the God Damn barrier, stop being a puss and spell it out!!!! GOD!


I was quoting mig.  She didn't spell it out and I wasn't changing the quote.  :shrug:



baydoll said:


> So what 'words' are they not sharing, and what 'word' would you like them to spread?


When all you say is "fags suck, you're going to hell!" and not providing any additional info, that's useless.  If you don't talk about adultery, loving thy neighbor, not throwing stones, and the other thousands of lessons in the OT and NT, then you're not really sharing "the word."


----------



## migtig

Hank said:


> Break the God Damn barrier, stop being a puss and spell it out!!!! GOD!



I believe something like this:
"We do not write G-d's name in a place where it may be discarded or erased. Treating G-d's name with reverence is a way to give respect to G-d."
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/AID/166899/ShowFeedback/true


----------



## Zguy28

migtig said:


> According to Christians, everybody is a sinner, including themselves.  But the way I understand it, in order to accept Jesus, you have to admit your sins and get right with G-d and if you can't admit to sinning, then you are a liar, which I think may be another sin.    Not sure about that one.
> 
> Anyway, if I tell you Jesus loves you, but you gotta stop your sinning ways and make an honest woman of your girlfriend and get right with G-d, so you can go to your earthly reward, that shouldn't really offend you.  It's not casting stones.  It's telling the truth.  After all, as your friend, I love you and want you to go to heaven right?
> 
> But it would offend you because you aren't Christian. You would consider me being intolerate of your "living in sin" situation, intolerant of your religious beliefs and so on and get mad and huffy and say "well you did it" and I'd say yep.     I'm a tad  but I think you get the point.
> 
> Christians want you to admit your sins, accept G-d and Jesus as your personal savior, and then strive to be a better person by not commiting those same sins any more.  It's not casting stones as you say, but an honest effort to attempt to get you thinking about your wicked ways and how to turn your life around.
> 
> I've never met a true believer who has not admitted to being a sinner.
> 
> See you have to listen to the Chrisitian message all the way through to get it.  I think a lot of people hear "I want to share the Good news with you" and they automatically shut down or become instantly offended and outraged instead of listening.
> 
> That's the thing.  Lots of arguments and disagreements would NEVER occur if humans actually listened instead of instantly reacting. :shrug:



Exactly. This is good way to explain it:

<iframe src="//player.vimeo.com/video/97258323" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen></iframe> <p><a href="http://vimeo.com/97258323">3-Circles Life Conversation</a>  on <a href="https://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>


----------



## Larry Gude

baydoll said:


> And that's exactly what the owner of that bakery was doing.  Thanks, Larry!



No. He was being a neurotic freak and harming his faith by acting like an ass hat. He bakes cakes for a living. In a community. Filled with people who, many, are probably not much like him. So, bake your cakes and keep your faith.


----------



## vraiblonde

Larry Gude said:


> No. He was being a neurotic freak and harming his faith by acting like an ass hat. He bakes cakes for a living. In a community. Filled with people who, many, are probably not much like him. So, bake your cakes and keep your faith.



Who cares what his reason was?  He should be able to refuse service for any reason he pleases, and let the money talk.


----------



## b23hqb

Larry Gude said:


> No. He was being a neurotic freak and harming his faith by acting like an ass hat. He bakes cakes for a living. In a community. Filled with people who, many, are probably not much like him. So, bake your cakes and keep your faith.[/QUOTE
> 
> Getting frustrated,  LG? Neurotic freak? The gall of anyone standing against the homosexual community?
> 
> Sorry, LG. The owner was ACTING on his faith, and not caving in to those that insist he violate his faith. "So, bake your cakes and keep your faith" - your statement. What a joke on your part, simply knowing that you and yours will go to court, find a sympathetic judge, and go from there.
> 
> At least this guy is showing and demonstrating his faith, supposedly supported by his First Amendment rights. You are trashing him for those beliefs.
> 
> You and yours support anything that goes against First amendment rights that you do not agree with.
> 
> Dude has a faith. What do you have other than pro-homosexual, anti-Christian agendas?
> 
> But in your case, anything that you disagree with overrides anything others believe - First Amendment means nothing unless it is in your favor.
> 
> Really Christian-like, LG.
> 
> Oh, wait..........as soon as your christian faith agrees with what the Bible....errrr......God's Word.......errrrr.......agnostics........devout christian..........errrrr........whatever......


----------



## czygvtwkr

Larry Gude said:


> No. He was being a neurotic freak and harming his faith by acting like an ass hat. He bakes cakes for a living. In a community. Filled with people who, many, are probably not much like him. So, bake your cakes and keep your faith.



Does the baker have a right to refuse service,  of course he does.  Do the grooms have a right to be offended,  of course they do.  The problem with situations like these is people take sides thinking one is right and the other is wrong.  In this situation they are both being douche bags.


----------



## ProximaCentauri

b23hqb said:


> Larry Gude said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. He was being a neurotic freak and harming his faith by acting like an ass hat. He bakes cakes for a living. In a community. Filled with people who, many, are probably not much like him. So, bake your cakes and keep your faith.[/QUOTE
> 
> Getting frustrated,  LG? Neurotic freak? The gall of anyone standing against the homosexual community?
> 
> Sorry, LG. The owner was ACTING on his faith, and not caving in to those that insist he violate his faith. "So, bake your cakes and keep your faith" - your statement. What a joke on your part, simply knowing that you and yours will go to court, find a sympathetic judge, and go from there.
> 
> At least this guy is showing and demonstrating his faith, supposedly supported by his First Amendment rights. You are trashing him for those beliefs.
> 
> You and yours support anything that goes against First amendment rights that you do not agree with.
> 
> Dude has a faith. What do you have other than pro-homosexual, anti-Christian agendas?
> 
> But in your case, anything that you disagree with overrides anything others believe - First Amendment means nothing unless it is in your favor.
> 
> Really Christian-like, LG.
> 
> Oh, wait..........as soon as your christian faith agrees with what the Bible....errrr......God's Word.......errrrr.......agnostics........devout christian..........errrrr........whatever......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Christians like yourself wish to pervert the 1st Amendment to justify discrimination against Gays who offend their 'faith'. But I can't imagine your bigotry stopping with gays. What about exotic dancers, adulterers, women who have had abortions? ...all these 'sinners' and more could become potential targets of your 'righteous' discrimination.
> 
> How nice would this be for you and your fellow self-righteous Christian bigots if you could pull this off!
Click to expand...


----------



## Zguy28

czygvtwkr said:


> Does the baker have a right to refuse service,  of course he does.  Do the grooms have a right to be offended,  of course they do.  The problem with situations like these is people take sides thinking one is right and the other is wrong.  In this situation they are both being douche bags.


Actually, according to the laws of this land, he does NOT have the right to refuse service to whoever he wants. If a baker sells cakes, and they want a cake, he can't refuse based on them being gay, black, a woman, age, or disabled. It is what it is, even if many disagree with it. Its still the law.


----------



## Larry Gude

vraiblonde said:


> Who cares what his reason was?  He should be able to refuse service for any reason he pleases, and let the money talk.



That horse left the barn a LONG time ago. 

The right to refuse service to blacks, to whites, to the Irish, to whomever, is gone. It just is. As a condition of business, we, the people, from sea to shining sea, have said you can't do that any more.


----------



## baydoll

Larry Gude said:


> No. He was being a neurotic freak and harming his faith by acting like an ass hat. He bakes cakes for a living. In a community. Filled with people who, many, are probably not much like him. So, bake your cakes and keep your faith.



And here I was thinking it's a free country. With freedom of religion. And freedom of speech. 

So take your business elsewhere and don't have a hissy fit. 

IMHO that gay couple were egging this bakery on. It was an obvious set-up.


----------



## baydoll

Larry Gude said:


> That horse left the barn a LONG time ago.
> 
> The right to refuse service to blacks, to whites, to the Irish, to whomever, is gone. It just is. As a condition of business, we, the people, from sea to shining sea, have said you can't do that any more.



What's the difference between someone refusing service to blacks, whites,  Irish, whomever and a Christian business refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding?

Anyone?


----------



## czygvtwkr

Zguy28 said:


> Actually, according to the laws of this land, he does NOT have the right to refuse service to whoever he wants. If a baker sells cakes, and they want a cake, he can't refuse based on them being gay, black, a woman, age, or disabled. It is what it is, even if many disagree with it. Its still the law.



It's easy:  "I'm sorry I am so busy I can not support anything in that time frame,  may I suggest Mark, Rick, and Steve's bakery down the street."  "Or if you want to change the date to 3 months away I can support you" 

Easy Peasy, no hurt feelings, etc.


----------



## Larry Gude

baydoll said:


> What's the difference between someone refusing service to blacks, whites,  Irish, whomever and a Christian business refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding?
> 
> Anyone?



None. 

That's the point.


----------



## Larry Gude

czygvtwkr said:


> It's easy:  "I'm sorry I am so busy I can not support anything in that time frame,  may I suggest Mark, Rick, and Steve's bakery down the street."  "Or if you want to change the date to 3 months away I can support you"
> 
> Easy Peasy, no hurt feelings, etc.



I have NO doubt that this was a 'hit', ie, it became known this guy didn't want to serve gays. I have no doubt a plan was hatched to provoke this confrontation and make an example of him. 

Anyone who wants to make a BFD about cakes and their faith, anyone who wants that sort of attention, is probably going to get it.


----------



## Amused_despair

baydoll said:


> What's the difference between someone refusing service to blacks, whites,  Irish, whomever and a Christian business refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding?
> 
> Anyone?



Probably for the same difference between the time when the Bible was used to justify slavery in this country and now it is not.  If you do not want to serve gays and you also do not serve people who live in sin with each other, who work on the Sabbath (and the orignal Sabbath was Saturday if we are invoking Old Testament rules and laws), you do not serve people who eat animals who do not chew their own cud, fish that do not have scales, etc, etc, etc. then maybe there is an effective argument (and a VERY tiny customer base) if they are picking and choosing what laws they want to enforce like the Bible is a legal salad bar then the religious argument loses some of its gusto.  Besides, if Jesus said sell all that you own and give the proceeds to the poor, why does the Christian baker still own a bakery anyways?  If they are using the Good Book as a playbook for their lfie, use it from coverr to cover not just the stuff on page 1134.


----------



## Beta

baydoll said:


> What's the difference between someone refusing service to blacks, whites,  Irish, whomever and a Christian business refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding?
> 
> Anyone?



There isn't one.  That's a very slippery slope.  Next thing you know, that Christian business can turn down Muslims, white churches will keep out black people (fear of gospel music), etc.  If it's OK to discriminate against someone for religious reasons, and religion is a very loose concept that's different from person to person, there would be no limits to what a person could discriminate against.  Then we're back to segregation.  Is that really where we're evolving?

And since when did religion say not to serve "sinners?"  Didn't Jesus serve sinners and say love thy neighbor?  Can you point out somewhere in the bible that tells you not to serve homosexuals?


----------



## baydoll

Larry Gude said:


> None.
> 
> That's the point.



Let me help you there, Larry. The key words are RACE vs. SEXUAL PREFERENCES.


----------



## baydoll

Beta said:


> There isn't one.  That's a very slippery slope.  Next thing you know, that Christian business can turn down Muslims, white churches will keep out black people (fear of gospel music), etc.  If it's OK to discriminate against someone for religious reasons, and religion is a very loose concept that's different from person to person, there would be no limits to what a person could discriminate against.  Then we're back to segregation.  Is that really where we're evolving?
> 
> And since when did religion say not to serve "sinners?"  Didn't Jesus serve sinners and say love thy neighbor?  Can you point out somewhere in the bible that tells you not to serve homosexuals?



And again. Can you show me any Christian Business that refuses to serve someone because of the color of their skin? And when did any Christian business not serve anyone because they are SINNERS? 

The bakery refused to BAKE A WEDDING CAKE, for pete's sake. Hey! Don't like it? Go elsewhere. Stop being a whiny little baby...

 OH boo-hoo! That mean old Christian baker wouldn't bake me and my girlfriend/boyfriend a wedding cake!


----------



## baydoll

Amused_despair said:


> Probably for the same difference between the time when the Bible was used to justify slavery in this country an dnow it is not.  if you do not want to serve gays and you also do not serve people who live in sin with each other, who work on the Sabbath (and the orignal Sabbath was Saturday if we are invoking Old Testament rules and laws), you do not serve people who eat animals who do not chew their own cud, fish that do not have scales, etc, etc, etc. then maybe there is an effective argument (and a VERY tiny customer base) if they are picking and choosing what laws they want to enforce like the Bible is a legal salad bar then the religious argument loses some of its gusto.  Besides, if Jesus said sell all that you own and give the proceeds to the poor, why does the Christian baker still own a bakery anyways?  If they are using the Good Book as a playbook for their lfie, use it from coverr to cover not just the stuff on page 1134.



What?!


----------



## Larry Gude

baydoll said:


> Let me help you there, Larry. The key words are RACE vs. SEXUAL PREFERENCES.



Would you mind sharing with the class when you chose your sexual preferences?


----------



## baydoll

Beta said:


> When all you say is "fags suck, you're going to hell!" and not providing any additional info, that's useless.  If you don't talk about adultery, loving thy neighbor, not throwing stones, and the other thousands of lessons in the OT and NT, then you're not really sharing "the word."



Well I agree with you on that one. When "Christians" (and I'm using that term loosely with those folks) say things like 'fags suck, you're going to hell' I REALLY question how much those folks actually know Christ. 


Not much from the sounds of it.


----------



## baydoll

Larry Gude said:


> Would you mind sharing with the class when you chose your sexual preferences?



And that has what to do with the color of one's skin?


----------



## Zguy28

Christy said:


> Not really.  The question I posed was why homosexuality or transgender brings out so much anger in so many Christians?  I didn't argue against it being a sin, it clearly is, however this particular sin tends to make people lose their minds.



So, getting back to the original question... maybe those folks aren't Christians?


----------



## Zguy28

And here is an article I posted a while back regarding Larry's question (except its a photographer). It bears reposting I think. Its by Russell Moore, the president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. 

http://thegospelcoalition.org/artic...ographer-work-at-a-same-sex-wedding-ceremony/

And also his response to some criticism of that article:

http://erlc.com/article/are-christians-hypocritical-on-weddings-and-conscience-protection

He makes a very good example of a hypothetical in it:



> Should a Christian (or Muslim or Orthodox Jewish or feminist New Age) web designer be compelled to develop a site platform for a legal pornography company?


----------



## Beta

baydoll said:


> And again. Can you show me any Christian Business that refuses to serve someone because of the color of their skin? And when did any Christian business not serve anyone because they are SINNERS?
> 
> The bakery refused to BAKE A WEDDING CAKE, for pete's sake. Hey! Don't like it? Go elsewhere. Stop being a whiny little baby...
> 
> OH boo-hoo! That mean old Christian baker wouldn't bake me and my girlfriend/boyfriend a wedding cake!


I don't know of any "Christian" bakery that has turned down black people these days, but I'm sure it happened in the old days all the time.  My point is that if you allow one religious lenience (Christian baker doesn't serve gays) then it's the beginning of a slippery slope.  If I make the claim that my religion says I can't serve Muslims, or Arabs, or blacks, or whatever...who can argue?  That one Christian guy says he can't serve gays while most Christians do, so why can't another say he can't serve blacks?  :shrug:

As for "And when did any Christian business not serve anyone because they are SINNERS?"  -- based on what I'm reading, many of you are saying that homosexuality is a sin (which I argue is equal to numerous other sins we all commit).  That seems to be this baker's basis for not serving them, right?  So he's selectively not serving specific sinners.  I was asking where the bible says not to serve sinners.  Or does it only tell you not to serve homosexuals?  I'm looking for the religious basis that makes the actions acceptable.



baydoll said:


> Well I agree with you on that one. When "Christians" (and I'm using that term loosely with those folks) say things like 'fags suck, you're going to hell' I REALLY question how much those folks actually know Christ.
> 
> 
> Not much from the sounds of it.


Exactly.  But I feel like most people who use religion as their crutch don't "actually know Christ," which is the problem.  They selectively choose bible passages to support their argument and ignore the full story, or ignore the rest that refutes or better explains it.


----------



## Larry Gude

baydoll said:


> And that has what to do with the color of one's skin?



You said 'choice' in regards to sex and that isn't how it works. Unless, of course, you chose your desires and passions?


----------



## MMDad

baydoll said:


> Well I agree with you on that one. When "Christians" (and I'm using that term loosely with those folks) say things like 'fags suck, you're going to hell' I REALLY question how much those folks actually know Christ.
> 
> 
> Not much from the sounds of it.



And that's why WBC fails. As soon as I see a sign that starts with "God Hates" I stop reading. They have nothing to offer me. I do not believe that God hates anyone. God loves every one of us unconditionally. It doesn't matter what we do, God's love is there for us. It is our choice wether we want to accept it or not.

That's why the vitriol from some in the name of God is offensive to me. Hate is a human failing, and ascribing it to God is just wrong.


----------



## PsyOps

migtig said:


> True that.  Jesus offended lots of people with his words.
> 
> However, with the bakery owner, was he or she wrong to not want to support a gay marriage because it was against their belief system?  I can see their perspective.  Why should one be forced to act against their personal moral beliefs? :shrug:
> 
> Me personally, I think your business it's your choice on who you serve or don't serve. Unless it's a publically owned company.  I don't think the government is in the right on forcing you to serve customers you don't want to serve.  But that is a big government vs libertarian issue.  Not a religious one.



From the standpoint of liberty and America, I respect the bakery for taking their stance.  From a Chistian POV they blew an opportunity to minister to someone they believe are ‘sick’.  



> Then Levi held a great banquet for Jesus at his house, and a large crowd of tax collectors and others were eating with them. But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?”
> 
> Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” – Luke 5:29-32


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Zguy28 said:


> So, getting back to the original question... maybe those folks aren't Christians?



The Westboro Baptists and others self-identify as Christians. Whether or not you, or anyone else, would say 'they are not acting like Christians, therefore they are not true Christians', is irrelevant. This is the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.


----------



## PsyOps

baydoll said:


> I have no clue what you are going on about.
> 
> You refusing to serve me because of what I serve you because of what you believe is contrary to what Christ told us? What?? !!!
> 
> If Jesus acted what way? You're equating someone who refused to bake a WEDDING CAKE for a gay couple's marriage for pete's sake to stoning a woman for prositution???!!!
> 
> Good grief, man!
> 
> Offend someone, how is not going along with the gay agenda offending someone? Oh that's right! It's not nice to offend ANYONE EXCEPT THOSE HYPOCRITICAL SELF RIGHTEOUS CHRISTIANS of course.



And I have no idea what you’re going on about.  I am not offended by what gays do, or anyone else for that matter.  As a biblical matter (which is the standard Christians are supposed to follow) you can read my previous post where Jesus was questioned for this exact same thing; serving up to sinners.  These bakers showed how willing they are to judge rather than love, and how unwilling they are to serve.  And I don’t mean serving a cake.  Perhaps those are the HYPOCRITICAL SELF RIGHTEOUS CHRISTIANS we need to be talking about; those that claim to be full of God’s love, then spitting in someone’s face for being sinners.

And for a true measure of what this means, even when Jesus was being crucified – one of the most torturous ways to die – he still forgave them “FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO”.


----------



## Radiant1

ProximaCentauri said:


> The Westboro Baptists and others self-identify as Christians. Whether or not you, or anyone else, would say 'they are not acting like Christians, therefore they are not true Christians', is irrelevant. This is the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.



Exactly. I'm sure the bakery owner thinks himself more Christian than, say, Baydoll or myself.


----------



## Hank

PsyOps said:


> And I have no idea what you’re going on about.  I am not offended by what gays do, or anyone else for that matter.  As a biblical matter (which is the standard Christians are supposed to follow) you can read my previous post where Jesus was questioned for this exact same thing; serving up to sinners.  These bakers showed how willing they are to judge rather than love, and how unwilling they are to serve.  And I don’t mean serving a cake.  Perhaps those are the HYPOCRITICAL SELF RIGHTEOUS CHRISTIANS we need to be talking about; those that claim to be full of God’s love, then spitting in someone’s face for being sinners.
> 
> And for a true measure of what this means, even when Jesus was being crucified – one of the most torturous ways to die – he still forgave them “FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO”.



Nah, you're just phony. Is being phony, a sin? You might be going to Hell.


----------



## Zguy28

ProximaCentauri said:


> The Westboro Baptists and others self-identify as Christians. Whether or not you, or anyone else, would say 'they are not acting like Christians, therefore they are not true Christians', is irrelevant. This is the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.


Indeed it is a fallacy. However, that's why I added a "perhaps" to it. But, also, just because somebody uses a fallacious argument, that also doesn't necessarily make it untrue. Lots of people self-identify as things all the time when they are not those things.


----------



## Larry Gude

MMDad said:


> And that's why WBC fails. As soon as I see a sign that starts with "God Hates" I stop reading. They have nothing to offer me. I do not believe that God hates anyone. God loves every one of us unconditionally. It doesn't matter what we do, God's love is there for us. It is our choice wether we want to accept it or not.
> 
> That's why the vitriol from some in the name of God is offensive to me. Hate is a human failing, and ascribing it to God is just wrong.



See, WBC, if nothing else, they are, in fact, very devout. They deserve some sort of credit for being the most serious and literal about their faith.


----------



## ProximaCentauri

baydoll said:


> And that has what to do with the color of one's skin?



Whether or not you are discriminating based on skin color or sexual orientation doesn't really matter does it? In the final analysis, you are choosing to treat that person differently simply because they are different than you. You are breaking the 'golden rule'. Of course, it's not only Christians that break the golden rule, but some Christians seem to be doing a bang up job of it lately. These  'Christians' would like the world to revolve around them and their 'beliefs'. Faith-based discrimination of others is a 'righteous act' in their pious thinking. You and others who subscribe to this mindset, are nothing more than bigots, hiding behind a fallacious religious rationalization.


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Zguy28 said:


> Indeed it is a fallacy. However, that's why I added a "perhaps" to it. But, also, just because somebody uses a fallacious argument, that also doesn't necessarily make it untrue. Lots of people self-identify as things all the time when they are not those things.



Pretty much every person identifying themselves as Christian, believes they are the 'real McCoy'. They think they have the 'right' interpretation of the faith, just as you do. Certainly, you can say they are not 'True Christians', but they could say the same thing of you; and often do, one need not look any further than the discourse in this forum between the usual suspects. The many 'versions' of the faith and one's own interpretation of their particular 'brand' of Christianity, are part and parcel with any religion as you are well aware.

To say that your faith is genuine, while others are suspect who seem not to be 'acting like Christians', again is irrelevant. You're going to have to get over the fact that as a self-identified Christian, and especially a Baptist, you get lumped into the same barrel with that will have rotten apples such as the Westboro types, but hey, that's religion.


----------



## Zguy28

ProximaCentauri said:


> Pretty much every person identifying themselves as Christian, believes they are the 'real McCoy'. They think they have the 'right' interpretation of the faith, just as you do. Certainly, you can say they are not 'True Christians', but they could say the same thing of you; and often do, one need not look any further than the discourse in this forum between the usual suspects. The many 'versions' of the faith and one's own interpretation of their particular 'brand' of Christianity, are part and parcel with any religion as you are well aware.
> 
> To say that your faith is genuine, while others are suspect who seem not to be 'acting like Christians', again is irrelevant. You're going to have to get over the fact that as a self-identified Christian, and especially a Baptist, you get lumped into the same barrel with that will have rotten apples such as the Westboro types, but hey, that's religion.


No, its not religion. Its you.


----------



## Zguy28

Larry Gude said:


> See, WBC, if nothing else, they are, in fact, very devout. They deserve some sort of credit for being the most serious and literal about their faith.



You couldn't be more wrong about WBC. They are about money from lawsuits. They provoke people into retaliation and then sue them. Total scam and sham.


----------



## PsyOps

Larry Gude said:


> See, WBC, if nothing else, they are, in fact, very devout. They deserve some sort of credit for being the most serious and literal about their faith.



Literal according to what?


----------



## Larry Gude

PsyOps said:


> Literal according to what?



A harsh God.


----------



## PsyOps

Larry Gude said:


> A harsh God.



Well it is His creation not ours.  It's like you being allowed to chew your kid out, but he's not allowed to chew you out.  There is a hierarchy.  I don't think you'll find anywhere that God or Jesus commanded us to wish people dead.


----------



## baydoll

Zguy28 said:


> So, getting back to the original question... maybe those folks aren't Christians?



Bingo.


----------



## baydoll

Beta said:


> I don't know of any "Christian" bakery that has turned down black people these days, but I'm sure it happened in the old days all the time.  My point is that if you allow one religious lenience (Christian baker doesn't serve gays) then it's the beginning of a slippery slope.  If I make the claim that my religion says I can't serve Muslims, or Arabs, or blacks, or whatever...who can argue?  That one Christian guy says he can't serve gays while most Christians do, so why can't another say he can't serve blacks?  :shrug:



No the bakery never said it wouldn't serve them because they were gay, they wouldn't make them a special order wedding cake because gay marriage is an abomination to God and they (the bakery) would be disobeying God by making this cake for them. They never not once said gays were not allowed in their store. This isn't about not serving gays AT ALL (coming in to buy cupcakes, regular cakes ect.) because they have had gay customers prior to this, this was about a special order for a gay wedding which the bakery refused to do, that's all. The gay couple could have gone elsewhere instead of blowing this WAY out of proportion and ruining this baker's livelihood.  

I'm thinking this whole thing was a set-up by the gay agenda targeting Christian businesses.


----------



## baydoll

Beta said:


> As for "And when did any Christian business not serve anyone because they are SINNERS?"  -- based on what I'm reading, many of you are saying that homosexuality is a sin (which I argue is equal to numerous other sins we all commit).  That seems to be this baker's basis for not serving them, right?  So he's selectively not serving specific sinners.  I was asking where the bible says not to serve sinners.  Or does it only tell you not to serve homosexuals?  I'm looking for the religious basis that makes the actions acceptable.



You might have an argument IF the bakery totally refused service to them because they are homosexual. But that was not the case. The bakery simply stated they cannot contribute to the gay marriage celebration as God forbids it. They were more than willing to make them any other type of cake. 

In my opinion, the whole thing is ridiculous. If I were to go into a place which obviously didn't want to do business with me I would simply take my business elsewhere. I wouldn't demand they do business with me. I would not scream and cry and say woe is me and throw hissy fits. I would not sue that business.  But for some reason, it is not allowed for us to refuse them and there are some (not all, mind you, SOME because the majority of them are NOT this way - I should know, my son is gay) gay people who insist on shoving their lifestyle down our throats. I love them all with the love of Christ. I pray for them because I don't want to see anyone (ESPECIALLY GAYS) spending eternity separated from God. And I treat them with the same respect I treat everyone. But if someone were to ask me my opinion, I would say that it is wrong. That's not me saying that, it is God.  And it comes down to who I will obey, either God or man (or myself), I will choose God every single time.


----------



## baydoll

Beta said:


> Exactly.  But I feel like most people who use religion as their crutch don't "actually know Christ," which is the problem.  They selectively choose bible passages to support their argument and ignore the full story, or ignore the rest that refutes or better explains it.



I couldn't agree with you more.


----------



## baydoll

Larry Gude said:


> You said 'choice' in regards to sex and that isn't how it works. Unless, of course, you chose your desires and passions?



The point is, Larry, this was not a case of discrimination. They didn't serve these gay people not because they were gay, but because they were asked to make them a special cake and that would have violated their conscience. (see my prior posts.)

When someone is forced by the state to provide a service that is against their beliefs, then the state is imposing restrictions to their beliefs. 

If anyone is being discriminated against is this Christian business.


----------



## baydoll

MMDad said:


> And that's why WBC fails. As soon as I see a sign that starts with "God Hates" I stop reading. They have nothing to offer me. I do not believe that God hates anyone. God loves every one of us unconditionally. It doesn't matter what we do, God's love is there for us. It is our choice wether we want to accept it or not.
> 
> That's why the vitriol from some in the name of God is offensive to me. Hate is a human failing, and ascribing it to God is just wrong.



Agreed 100%.


----------



## baydoll

ProximaCentauri said:


> The Westboro Baptists and others self-identify as Christians. Whether or not you, or anyone else, would say 'they are not acting like Christians, therefore they are not true Christians', is irrelevant. This is the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.



Then you, sir, are judging.


----------



## baydoll

Radiant1 said:


> Exactly. I'm sure the bakery owner thinks himself more Christian than, say, Baydoll or myself.



Judging much, Radiant?


----------



## baydoll

Larry Gude said:


> See, WBC, if nothing else, they are, in fact, very devout. They deserve some sort of credit for being the most serious and literal about their faith.



Seriously and literally WRONG, is more like it.


----------



## baydoll

ProximaCentauri said:


> Whether or not you are discriminating based on skin color or sexual orientation doesn't really matter does it? In the final analysis, you are choosing to treat that person differently simply because they are different than you. You are breaking the 'golden rule'. Of course, it's not only Christians that break the golden rule, but some Christians seem to be doing a bang up job of it lately. These  'Christians' would like the world to revolve around them and their 'beliefs'. Faith-based discrimination of others is a 'righteous act' in their pious thinking. You and others who subscribe to this mindset, are nothing more than bigots, hiding behind a fallacious religious rationalization.



Wow, judge much, PC? 

AGAIN. As I PREVIOUSLY posted, this was not discrimination.  See my prior posts, thanks.


----------



## baydoll

PsyOps said:


> And I have no idea what you’re going on about.  I am not offended by what gays do, or anyone else for that matter.  As a biblical matter (which is the standard Christians are supposed to follow) you can read my previous post where Jesus was questioned for this exact same thing; serving up to sinners.  These bakers showed how willing they are to judge rather than love, and how unwilling they are to serve.  And I don’t mean serving a cake.  Perhaps those are the HYPOCRITICAL SELF RIGHTEOUS CHRISTIANS we need to be talking about; those that claim to be full of God’s love, then spitting in someone’s face for being sinners.
> 
> And for a true measure of what this means, even when Jesus was being crucified – one of the most torturous ways to die – he still forgave them “FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO”.



Can you please show us where these people (the bakery) spit in anyone's faces? 

Seems like you're doing a lot of spitting there yourself, Sir. 

I don't know if you are aware of this but this bakery never said it wouldn't SERVE THEM AT ALL,  they told them (politely) they wouldn't be able to make them a WEDDING CAKE, for crying out loud. And then politely told them WHY they would not be able to do so. The bakery told them they can sell them anything else BUT a special order WEDDING CAKE which would violate their conscience, doing/participating in something they were against (gay marriage).  Sheesh! 

I mean, how hard is this???

I have a gay son even HE and HIS GAY FRIENDS think this is beyond ridiculous.


----------



## baydoll

> Originally Posted by PsyOps View Post
> 
> And I have no idea what you’re going on about. I am not offended by what gays do, or anyone else for that matter. As a biblical matter (which is the standard Christians are supposed to follow) you can read my previous post where Jesus was questioned for this exact same thing; serving up to sinners. These bakers showed how willing they are to judge rather than love, and how unwilling they are to serve. And I don’t mean serving a cake. Perhaps those are the HYPOCRITICAL SELF RIGHTEOUS CHRISTIANS we need to be talking about; those that claim to be full of God’s love, then spitting in someone’s face for being sinners.
> 
> And for a true measure of what this means, even when Jesus was being crucified – one of the most torturous ways to die – he still forgave them “FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO”.




So would that include Pedophiles as well? Or 40 year old Muslim men who marry 6 year old girls? Would you 'serve them' too? And forgive them their sins even if they had no desire whatsoever to give up said sins? 

After all, they're sinners too.  

The bakers were not judging gays. There is a HUGE difference between them saying WE DO NOT SERVE GAYS IN THIS BAKERY BECAUSE THEY ARE THE SCUMS OF THE EARTH AND WE SPIT IN THEIR FACES (which they didn't) to saying we do not bake a special order wedding cake for gay marriages . 

NOWHERE did they say they hated gays. NOWHERE.

YOU are the ones judging these people, PsyOps. Try taking that LOG out of your OWN eyes before you go trying to remove splinters out of others.


----------



## Radiant1

baydoll said:


> Judging much, Radiant?



No, and I said nothing that should lead you to think so.


----------



## baydoll

Radiant1 said:


> No, and I said nothing that should lead you to think so.



You are right and I apologize... how about we start over fresh and be friends from here on out?


----------



## Larry Gude

baydoll said:


> You are right and I apologize... how about we start over fresh and be friends from here on out?



Good morning. I was wondering if you answered my question as to when, and how, you chose your sexuality? Did I miss your reply? Not trying to be antagonistic but, trying to make the point. EVERY gay person I know did not choose to be gay. And I don't know anyone who chose to be heterosexual. For me, I've just always been attracted to women and not attracted to males. There was never a choice. It just is so, long ago, I rationalized that that is probably the case with everyone else, including gays. Based on the emphasis many folks place on sexuality being a choice, including, it seems, you, I ask the question; did you choose yours?


----------



## baydoll

Larry Gude said:


> Good morning. I was wondering if you answered my question as to when, and how, you chose your sexuality? Did I miss your reply? Not trying to be antagonistic but, trying to make the point. EVERY gay person I know did not choose to be gay. And I don't know anyone who chose to be heterosexual. For me, I've just always been attracted to women and not attracted to males. There was never a choice. It just is so, long ago, I rationalized that that is probably the case with everyone else, including gays. Based on the emphasis many folks place on sexuality being a choice, including, it seems, you, I ask the question; did you choose yours?



Good Morning to you too, Mr. Gude!

The reason why I didn't answer that particular question of yours was because it had nothing to do with the topic at hand, which was some bakery's decision not to bake a gay wedding cake.  

But being as you want to know my thoughts on this (and this is coming from a mom who has a gay son) I will do my utmost to answer your question. 

My son said the very same words to me, he didn't choose to be gay. But actually he DID choose to be gay. We all have feelings we don't choose (or do choose). We choose to feel hatred towards someone or a certain group of people (which would make us bigots), or to feel love for someone other than our spouses (which would make us adulterers)  or chose to feel love and have a sexual relationship with someone of our own sex. Those feelings aren't choices but we do choose whether or not to act on them. Like you, I choose to be heterosexual but that's not my particular bent towards sin. It wasn't sex for me, it was drugs when I was younger and alcohol as I grew older. I choose to follow my 'desires' for them but then came a point in my life when I decided to follow Christ and I choose not to indulge in those desires anymore.

We all have feelings at times which aren't necessarily right and which we shouldn't give in to. And just because we have these feelings doesn't mean God gave them to us. I have feelings too that I have to resist. God ask me to take up my crosses daily and follow Him and live obediently. That means giving up my 'self'. And if part of my 'self' is my proclivity towards a sexual desire that is wrong than I will give that particular sin up. 

Plenty of people have 'selves' too, by the way. They may choose to indulge their 'selves' but as Christians I'm called to something different. I'm not here to satisfy my 'self', I'm here to lose them. In the long run that's the only way to really find our true 'selves' anyway.


----------



## PsyOps

baydoll said:


> I don't know if you are aware of this but this bakery never said it wouldn't SERVE THEM AT ALL,  they told them (politely) they wouldn't be able to make them a WEDDING CAKE, for crying out loud. And then politely told them WHY they would not be able to do so. The bakery told them they can sell them anything else BUT a special order WEDDING CAKE which would violate their conscience, doing/participating in something they were against (gay marriage).  Sheesh!
> 
> I mean, how hard is this???
> 
> I have a gay son even HE and HIS GAY FRIENDS think this is beyond ridiculous.



A distinction without a difference.  They sent a clear message that if you don't think the way I do I refuse to have anything to do with you.  If Jesus had taken this position Matthew would have never been a disciple.


----------



## PsyOps

baydoll said:


> YOU are the ones judging these people, PsyOps. Try taking that LOG out of your OWN eyes before you go trying to remove splinters out of others.



I am making a judgment about what they DID, not who they are.  If I owned a business, I wouldn’t refuse them anymore than I would refuse a gay couple or anyone else for that matter.  What better way to tell folks that God loves them than to act in a way that shows God loves them?  These people conveyed the message that God doesn’t love them because they are gay.  It apparently needs to be stated over and over… love the sinner, hate the sin.


----------



## Makavide

PsyOps said:


> A distinction without a difference.  They sent a clear message that if you don't think the way I do I refuse to have anything to do with you.  If Jesus had taken this position Matthew would have never been a disciple.



Did Matthew change his ways?

You all keep saying that Jesus served the sinners.  He did not.  He saved the sinners.  Brought them out of their sinful ways.  He did not go about this by saying "what you are doing is ok, keep doing it".  He said "go forth and sin no more".  



> Now the tax collectors and sinners were all gathering around to hear Jesus.  But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.”
> 
> Then Jesus told them this parable:  “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it?  And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders  and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’  I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.



Here Jesus is telling us that when he finds the lost sheep (sinner) and brings him back to the flock (out of it's sinful ways) life is grand.  No where in this parable did Jesus say that he and the lost sheep hung out together enjoying grass....


----------



## PsyOps

Makavide said:


> Did Matthew change his ways?
> 
> You all keep saying that Jesus served the sinners.  He did not.  He saved the sinners.  Brought them out of their sinful ways.  He did not go about this by saying "what you are doing is ok, keep doing it".  He said "go forth and sin no more".



“…just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” – Matthew 20:28



Makavide said:


> Here Jesus is telling us that when he finds the lost sheep (sinner) and brings him back to the flock (out of it's sinful ways) life is grand.  No where in this parable did Jesus say that he and the lost sheep hung out together enjoying grass....



Where would Matthew had been if Jesus hadn't come into his life?  The point I’m trying to make is Jesus did not choose so-called ‘upstanding’ people of the temple or from high, learned places within the Sanhedrin.  He chose lowly people; people that were considered to be of questionable character.  Why did he do this?  Why don’t Christians today do this?  They stick to themselves and reject everyone else.  Kind of the same thing Jesus lambasted the leaders of the temples of those days (Matthew 23).


----------



## Larry Gude

baydoll said:


> Good Morning to you too, Mr. Gude!
> 
> The reason why I didn't answer that particular question of yours was because it had nothing to do with the topic at hand, which was some bakery's decision not to bake a gay wedding cake.
> 
> But being as you want to know my thoughts on this (and this is coming from a mom who has a gay son) I will do my utmost to answer your question.
> 
> My son said the very same words to me, he didn't choose to be gay. But actually he DID choose to be gay. We all have feelings we don't choose (or do choose). We choose to feel hatred towards someone or a certain group of people (which would make us bigots), or to feel love for someone other than our spouses (which would make us adulterers)  or chose to feel love and have a sexual relationship with someone of our own sex. Those feelings aren't choices but we do choose whether or not to act on them. Like you, I choose to be heterosexual but that's not my particular bent towards sin. It wasn't sex for me, it was drugs when I was younger and alcohol as I grew older. I choose to follow my 'desires' for them but then came a point in my life when I decided to follow Christ and I choose not to indulge in those desires anymore.
> 
> We all have feelings at times which aren't necessarily right and which we shouldn't give in to. And just because we have these feelings doesn't mean God gave them to us. I have feelings too that I have to resist. God ask me to take up my crosses daily and follow Him and live obediently. That means giving up my 'self'. And if part of my 'self' is my proclivity towards a sexual desire that is wrong than I will give that particular sin up.
> 
> Plenty of people have 'selves' too, by the way. They may choose to indulge their 'selves' but as Christians I'm called to something different. I'm not here to satisfy my 'self', I'm here to lose them. In the long run that's the only way to really find our true 'selves' anyway.



What a wonderful answer! Thank you, sincerely. Well said.


----------



## baydoll

PsyOps said:


> A distinction without a difference.  They sent a clear message that if you don't think the way I do I refuse to have anything to do with you.  If Jesus had taken this position Matthew would have never been a disciple.



You're forgetting that Jesus also told people to 'go and sin no more'. And as for His followers, He told them to obey His commandments.


----------



## baydoll

PsyOps said:


> I am making a judgment about what they DID, not who they are.  If I owned a business, I wouldn’t refuse them anymore than I would refuse a gay couple or anyone else for that matter.  What better way to tell folks that God loves them than to act in a way that shows God loves them?  These people conveyed the message that God doesn’t love them because they are gay.  It apparently needs to be stated over and over… love the sinner, hate the sin.



But you're completely ignoring the other things Jesus said.


----------



## baydoll

Makavide said:


> Did Matthew change his ways?
> 
> You all keep saying that Jesus served the sinners.  He did not.  He saved the sinners.  Brought them out of their sinful ways.  He did not go about this by saying "what you are doing is ok, keep doing it".  He said "go forth and sin no more".
> 
> 
> 
> Here Jesus is telling us that when he finds the lost sheep (sinner) and brings him back to the flock (out of it's sinful ways) life is grand.  No where in this parable did Jesus say that he and the lost sheep hung out together enjoying grass....



Good post, Makavide.


----------



## baydoll

Larry Gude said:


> What a wonderful answer! Thank you, sincerely. Well said.



Thank you, Larry! That means a lot to me. Really. You made my day! 

Hope you had a very happy Father's Day yesterday!


----------



## Zguy28

Makavide said:


> Did Matthew change his ways?
> 
> You all keep saying that Jesus served the sinners.  He did not.  He saved the sinners.  Brought them out of their sinful ways.  He did not go about this by saying "what you are doing is ok, keep doing it".  He said "go forth and sin no more".
> 
> 
> 
> Here Jesus is telling us that when he finds the lost sheep (sinner) and brings him back to the flock (out of it's sinful ways) life is grand.  No where in this parable did Jesus say that he and the lost sheep hung out together enjoying grass....





PsyOps said:


> “…just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” – Matthew 20:28
> 
> 
> 
> Where would Matthew had been if Jesus hadn't come into his life?  The point I’m trying to make is Jesus did not choose so-called ‘upstanding’ people of the temple or from high, learned places within the Sanhedrin.  He chose lowly people; people that were considered to be of questionable character.  Why did he do this?  Why don’t Christians today do this?  They stick to themselves and reject everyone else.  Kind of the same thing Jesus lambasted the leaders of the temples of those days (Matthew 23).


You are both correct.


----------



## baydoll

Zguy28 said:


> You are both correct.



Exactly.  

Jesus loves the sinner but also loves us enough to not leave us in that condition. Jesus is also about transformation.


----------



## PsyOps

baydoll said:


> But you're completely ignoring the other things Jesus said.



Such as?


----------



## Monello

czygvtwkr said:


> In this situation they are both being douche bags.



Or they are both sticking up for what they believe to be right.


----------



## baydoll

PsyOps said:


> Such as?




Go and sin no more?


----------



## PsyOps

baydoll said:


> Go and sin no more?



Well, if you completely blow the opportunity to convey that message... :shrug:

Can you imagine if Jesus had completely rejected the woman that committed adultery because he disagreed with her lifestyle, and had her sent away to be stoned?  and what was said:



> “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
> 
> “No one, sir,” she said.
> 
> “*Then neither do I condemn you*,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”



Do I believe the gay couple would have changed their ways if the owners had baked them a cake and seized that as an opportunity to preach?  I doubt it.  But just like the rich man, not everyone will accept the Word.  But they certainly won't accept it if we outright reject people we disagree with.


----------



## Hank

PsyOps said:


> blow the opportunity .



Ghey


----------



## Beta

baydoll said:


> You might have an argument IF the bakery totally refused service to them because they are homosexual. But that was not the case. The bakery simply stated they cannot contribute to the gay marriage celebration as God forbids it. They were more than willing to make them any other type of cake.



What did they ask for that was so terrible, a penis cake?  

I can't find anything that explains what the cake request was so I can only guess.  This was probably a cake that just happened to have 2 grooms on the top that would have otherwise been a cake found at some straight weddings.  Big deal.  Make the cake but tell them you don't have 2 grooms and they can probably find that elsewhere, or find someone who's "more comfortable" putting 2 grooms on the top.

Everything I'm reading says he refused to make the wedding cake because it was for a homosexual wedding.  So he refused to serve two customers because they were gay.  What's the difference if it's for cupcakes or a gay wedding?


----------



## baydoll

PsyOps said:


> Well, if you completely blow the opportunity to convey that message... :shrug:
> 
> Can you imagine if Jesus had completely rejected the woman that committed adultery because he disagreed with her lifestyle, and had her sent away to be stoned?  and what was said:



How do you know they blew that message? Can you read minds as well predict the future?

And are you forgetting what Jesus SAID to that woman after everybody left?


----------



## vraiblonde

baydoll said:


> And are you forgetting what Jesus SAID to that woman after everybody left?



You mean that "go and sin no more stuff"?

Psh.

Tigga please.

Anyway, business owners should be able to refuse service to anyone they please for any reason they please, and that is my final answer on this particular topic.


----------



## Larry Gude

vraiblonde said:


> Anyway, business owners should be able to refuse service to anyone they please for any reason they please, and that is my final answer on this particular topic.



No, they shouldn't.


----------



## baydoll

Larry Gude said:


> No, they shouldn't.



OH so one side can now force the other to comply? 

That sounds like slavery/communism.


----------



## baydoll

Beta said:


> What did they ask for that was so terrible, a penis cake?
> 
> I can't find anything that explains what the cake request was so I can only guess.  This was probably a cake that just happened to have 2 grooms on the top that would have otherwise been a cake found at some straight weddings.  Big deal.  Make the cake but tell them you don't have 2 grooms and they can probably find that elsewhere, or find someone who's "more comfortable" putting 2 grooms on the top.
> 
> Everything I'm reading says he refused to make the wedding cake because it was for a homosexual wedding.  So he refused to serve two customers because they were gay.  What's the difference if it's for cupcakes or a gay wedding?



Here I'll let you read for yourself:



> A family owned bakery has been ordered to make wedding cakes for gay couples and guarantee that its staff be given comprehensive training on Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws after the state’s Civil Rights Commission determined the Christian baker violated the law by refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.
> 
> Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, in Lakewood, Colorado was directed to change his store policies immediately and force his staff to attend the training sessions. For the next two years, Phillips will also be required to submit quarterly reports to the commission to confirm that he has not turned away customers based on their sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> Nicolle Martin, an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom, called the ruling Orwellian and said they are considering an appeal.
> 
> “They are turning people of faith into religious refugees,” Martin told me. “Is this the society that we want to live in – where people of faith are driven out of business?”
> 
> The controversy started in 2012 when a gay couple asked Phillips to make their wedding cake. Phillips politely declined, saying he could not make a cake promoting a same-sex ceremony because of his faith. He offered to make them any other baked item they wanted.
> 
> No one should ever have to walk into a store and wonder if they will be turned away just because of who they are,” Mullins added.
> 
> But that’s not what Phillips did. He was more than willing to make them a cupcake.
> 
> Jack doesn’t turn people away,” Martin told me. “There are just some events that he won’t lend his artistry to.”
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014...ing-cakes-undergo-sensitivity-training-after/


----------



## baydoll

vraiblonde said:


> You mean that "go and sin no more stuff"?
> 
> Psh.
> 
> Tigga please.



Well that's really insightful.


----------



## vraiblonde

Larry Gude said:


> No, they shouldn't.



So you don't think businesses have enough regulations without government telling them who they must and must not sell their product to?  You think there should be *more* government oversight of small Mom & Pop businesses?


----------



## vraiblonde

baydoll said:


> Well that's really insightful.



I was being sarcastic, making fun of folks who conveniently leave that part out.


----------



## baydoll

PsyOps said:


> Do I believe the gay couple would have changed their ways if the owners had baked them a cake and seized that as an opportunity to preach?  I doubt it.  But just like the rich man, not everyone will accept the Word.  But they certainly won't accept it if we outright reject people we disagree with.



I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here.

From the article I posted for Beta:



> But that’s not what Phillips did. He was more than willing to make them a cupcake.
> 
> “Jack doesn’t turn people away,” Martin told me. “There are just some events that he won’t lend his artistry to.”



WHY you might ask?

Because:



> “The Bible to me overrules all that and the Bible asks me to be obedient to Christ — and the Bible condemns certain things,”



I love my (gay) son UNCONDTIONALLY and he knows that. I support HIM. I DO NOT support what he DOES. I do things with my gay son and his SO, we go places together, they spend the holidays with us, as well as all our family get togethers,  I go out to eat with them, so on and so forth. I do this because I love my SON and I love his SO as PEOPLE because they're wonderful, kind, funny, friendly, loving PEOPLE. I enjoy being with them.

BUT. If they were to ever decide to get married and asked me to be a part of that I would tell them NO. 

NOT because of THEM AS PEOPLE but because I cannot be a part of what they are DOING. It is against what I believe in. And my son knows this. It doesn't hurt our relationship in the least. Matter of fact he respects me more because of it. 

End of story.


----------



## baydoll

vraiblonde said:


> I was being sarcastic, making fun of folks who conveniently leave that part out.



Oh, sorry.


----------



## SamSpade

Christy said:


> Sure it's a sin, you can't say (in accordance with the bible) that it isn't, however, so is coveting and adultery.



I'm much less critical of homosexuality than I used to be, and much more inclined to believe that they are born that way. As such, I find it hard to find fault with it, even though it still at some gut level kind of nauseates me.

But I really can't get around that the Bible calls it sin. So be it; I just tell people "ok, just say you disagree with it". That's how I feel. I disagree. I don't try and say the Bible DOESN'T condemn it, because it does. So we're in agreement there - we disagree with the Bible.

I think there's two aspects of why people get all in a kerfuffle over gays. The easy part is the gut level yuck factor - for straight people, an awful lot of them just are hugely turned off by it. I think that's driven a LOT of reaction over who does what with whom. It wasn't that long ago that having sex with someone of a different race was regarded as wrong by people. People are still kind of grossed out over hearing about elderly people getting it on - or very large people doing it. You just don't like it. Hearing that it is "sin" makes it easier to hate it.

But the other is driven in part by the Bible "sin" stuff. There's lots of stuff considered sin. Heck, if you THINK something is wrong and do it anyway - even if it's not strictly sin as defined by the Bible - it means you intended to do something you thought was wrong, and the Bible counts THAT as sin. The difference religious people have with gays is, they see it as unrepentant sin. There's no remorse, no contrition and a sense that it needs to be considered just ok. Try to think of other sins people do - somewhere along the line, they have a twinge of conscience that says, I really, REALLY should not have done that. Gays aren't doing that. I think Christians feel exactly the same way about people who are openly promiscuous, regardless of sexual preference. There's no intent whatsoever to repent.

One other thing - and I said there's just two I know of, but just an additional point - non-religious folks drive the media frenzy over homosexuality. I spent between 15-20 years of my life in various evangelical churches, some of them outright cults. I never heard even a single Sunday sermon or lesson specifically dumping on homosexuality. And there was a REALLY big reason - see, in these churches, it was considered sin - and some members had previously engaged in it, just as we had former drug dealers and prostitutes. They didn't go on these big judgmental tirades about gays, because they'd be insulting themselves. I'm inclined to believe that the press and non-religious types make a big deal about religious wackos who show up at funerals and do weird stuff. I think TV show writers make religious people almost ALWAYS hypocritical psychotics. MY experience for many years was generally compassion - even the cultists. They did OTHER stuff that would piss you off, but they didn't dump on gays.


----------



## Beta

baydoll said:


> OH so one side can now force the other to comply?
> 
> That sounds like slavery/communism.


We could always go back to where blacks are banned everywhere because white people don't want to sell them anything.  Is it better if we are all allowed to discriminate?  I'm sure someone would turn down bible thumpers too.  Would you organize a rally against them?  Let's call up Westboro Baptist!



baydoll said:


> Here I'll let you read for yourself:



Ugh, Fox News.  Talk about a misinformed readership.  But thank you for attempting to find something that would help provide further clarification.

Anyway, my point was that unless the cake was flaming gay where working on it offended him, i.e. something that a straight couple wouldn't order (like a penis cake), then I don't see where he had any complaint or reason not to fulfill the order.  What he decided is that by making a cake, he was somehow promoting a gay wedding, but by offering to make them a bunch of cupcakes for their wedding, that wouldn't be promoting it.  That smells like a completely BS story *made up after the fact* because he needed some kind of bogus excuse.  

Don't believe everything you read.  When it smells like a rat, it's a rat.


----------



## Merlin99

Larry Gude said:


> No, they shouldn't.



Yes they should, in fact they used to post signs stating exactly that "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". Just because you want to make government a nanny to everyone with hurt feelings doesn't mean that we all do.


----------



## Zguy28

Merlin99 said:


> Yes they should, in fact they used to post signs stating exactly that "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". Just because you want to make government a nanny to everyone with hurt feelings doesn't mean that we all do.


Its not a matter of "want to..." in Colorado (and most other states I think), its a matter of "its already the law."


----------



## Zguy28

Beta said:


> We could always go back to where blacks are banned everywhere because white people don't want to sell them anything.  Is it better if we are all allowed to discriminate?  I'm sure someone would turn down bible thumpers too.  Would you organize a rally against them?  Let's call up Westboro Baptist!
> 
> 
> 
> Ugh, Fox News.  Talk about a misinformed readership.  But thank you for attempting to find something that would help provide further clarification.
> 
> Anyway, my point was that unless the cake was flaming gay where working on it offended him, i.e. something that a straight couple wouldn't order (like a penis cake), then I don't see where he had any complaint or reason not to fulfill the order.  What he decided is that by making a cake, he was somehow promoting a gay wedding, but by offering to make them a bunch of cupcakes for their wedding, that wouldn't be promoting it.  That smells like a completely BS story *made up after the fact* because he needed some kind of bogus excuse.
> 
> Don't believe everything you read.  When it smells like a rat, it's a rat.


I'm no fan of Fox News, but this post also smells a little rattish or should I say judgmental of the baker and his motives?


----------



## Beta

Zguy28 said:


> I'm no fan of Fox News, but this post also smells a little rattish or should I say judgmental of the baker and his motives?



Explain a reasonable motive where a cake is promoting a gay wedding, but selling them cupcakes for a wedding doesn't promote a gay wedding.  Excuse me?  Please, make sense of it.  If you can, then maybe I'll bite, but I actually put some thought into it.  Thanks.


----------



## Gilligan

THE_GOVERNOR said:


> 6-17-2014
> Thus saith The Lord God YAH
> Homosexuality is not a Disease - It is an Insanity that took Place When Lucifer Tricked 2 Billions Angels into Stealing Bodies which were in incubation for Human Spirits
> YAH The Father of Jesus Had Already Sabotaged The Chambers with Things that would Drive Angels of Rebellion Insane... One Being Confusion! Confusion! It Was A Mistake
> To Believe That YAH was Fool Enough Not To Sabotage Other Chambers After Lucifer Took A Body And Decieved Adam & Took A Body And Deceived Eve> Meaning
> The 1st Sin Was Infidelity - as Eve was Tricked by The False Prophet into Believing Sex was Okay With Others Like Her [ Looked Like! ] Adam was the 1st to have a Homosexual Relationsship! As The Body He Slept With Was of A Female Body Stolen from the Archives of [ Being Prepared for Human Spirit Habitation ] ... However!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> The False Prophet Who Stole The Human Transplanted Body> Meaning the Spirit of The False Prophet Was Inside - When Adam Had Sexual Relationship With The Stolen Corpse!
> Corpse Because The Lord Had Not Yet Breathed Life Into It! Thus You Have The 1st Homosexual Being Lucifer's Protegee> The false Prophet! Lucifer Has Always Been In Custody!
> But Before Capture Had The Knowledge To Transfer Over To His Protegee> Being How To Inhabit The Humans! It is always a Sin> Being Homosexual...
> However, Some are Trapped Into It - Tricked and Repent In Time To Be Saved! Others Are Possed By Demons And Will Never Ever Again Know Self -
> As They Have Given Themselves Over To That Particular Sin!



Well there ya go. I love this site..not a day goes by without me learning something new.


----------



## Zguy28

Beta said:


> Explain a reasonable motive where a cake is promoting a gay wedding, but selling them cupcakes for a wedding doesn't promote a gay wedding.  Excuse me?  Please, make sense of it.  If you can, then maybe I'll bite, but I actually put some thought into it.  Thanks.


One has two dudes on top of it?


----------



## Beta

Zguy28 said:


> One has two dudes on top of it?



Why, because cupcakes can't?  What if the baker doesn't have two dudes available and tells them to get it online, but makes the actual cake?  There were plenty of ways he could have avoided it.  Maybe he thought making a wedding cake for a big gay wedding was bad for business.  Oops.

Cupcake pic:
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/...3V5zPrzspayShHAROU1JkgmM7IJeCnVJzjCOfNTTewYFz
If he made a bunch of groom cupcakes, would that have been immoral too?  Apparently not, according to the baker.


----------



## PsyOps

baydoll said:


> How do you know they blew that message? Can you read minds as well predict the future?
> 
> And are you forgetting what Jesus SAID to that woman after everybody left?



If you had included the rest of my post ("Do I believe the gay couple would have changed their ways if the owners had baked them a cake and seized that as an opportunity to preach? I doubt it.") you would have had an answer to the 'mind reading' question.  

But that would be part of the conversation if it came up.  IF, the baker had decided to bake the cake for the gay couple 1 of two things likely would have happened:

1. The gay couple listened and actually considered what the baker preached to them

or

2. They would have gotten fed up with listening and probably would have said "forget it, we'll go somewhere else for our cake".

Win - Win!


----------



## hotcoffee

Christy said:


> I'm not even sure why I am bringing this up, because I already know how this discussion will go (not well).  But it has always befuddled me as to how much anger homosexuality brings out in so many Christians.  Take this article for instance.  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/9/transgendered-priest-give-sermon-washington-nation/
> 
> You've got a transgendered Episcopal Priest giving a sermon at the National Cathedral. The comments at the end are just insane.  Talk about some hate being leveled at other human beings by the religion that is supposed to be all about "love thy neighbor" and whatnot.
> 
> Sure it's a sin, you can't say (in accordance with the bible) that it isn't, however, so is coveting and adultery.  Not keeping the sabbath day holy is also a big no no.   So all you football fans are sinning like nobodies business (just sayin).  :shrug:
> 
> I just don't get why being a homo is so much worse than any of the other sins within the Bible.  Hell, being queer didn't even make the Top Ten (as in commandments).
> 
> What's with all the hate?  Please discuss.



1st of all.... If this priest is a priest then the priest is celebent.... Right?  

It's the sin of a man laying down with a man and having intimate relationships.  

In this case... the priest is a man who has acknowledged that he has a particular thorn that he must bare.... as Paul who was issued a license to kill followers of Jesus....  a thorn.... like lust or greed or hate....  a thorn....

This priest in being celebent is showing that although he has a human nature, he has a love for Christ His Savior.  

I believe it is possible for two people to live in the same home without the intimacy of sex.  Friendship is boundless.  

So, although there are a lot of i's to dot and t's to cross.... It is possible on a case by case basis for a transgender human to be accepted as a devoted follower of Jesus.   

It's not up to me to judge.


----------



## Larry Gude

SamSpade said:


> I'm much less critical of homosexuality than I used to be, and much more inclined to believe that they are born that way. As such, I find it hard to find fault with it, even though it still at some gut level kind of nauseates me. .



Not directed at you but, general comments; There is the issue; why would anyone find fault with it??? It's like finding fault with someones preference for a football team or a wine or a flavor of ice cream or the beach over the mountains. or any other religion. 

Gay people are NOT trying to run Christianity and declare their way THE way. Far from it. They are saying "I don't believe in your faith." Nor are they beating on doors and trying to convert people to their beliefs. Or holding weekly services at the tax free gay church. Or trying to pass constitutional amendments banning heterosexual marriage. 

There are guys and gals who like their sex standard missionary position in their bedroom and late at night and not very often and only to make babies and do NOT like oral sex, anal sex, various positions, sex toys, waxes, oils, candles, adventurous sex or anything else two consenting heterosexual adults can come up with. That is THEIR preference. To them, all the rest in deviant, not normal, queer, odd and so forth. It stands completely to reason that, when it comes to sex, preference is as varied as preferences concerning food, exercise, entertainment, drink or any thing else humans do. So, being nauseous over gay sex, something someone else chooses to do, makes sense in the same way normal people recoil at the thought of scotch or fois gras or riding bicycles or the Dallas Cowboys. However, I don't seek to have those things banned and I have no concern over suddenly liking them against my will and that's another thing; 

People who are viscerally anti gay seem to be coming from the standpoint of fear that they, or their kids, will become infected with the gay gene and suddenly stop liking the opposite sex. That's not how it works. If anything, sexual preference is perhaps the most hard wired of human preference. I can see someone growing to like scotch or riding two wheeled engine-less vehicles or even sorta liking the Cowboys but, sexual intimacy, the only people I've ever known who 'became' gay, always were, will tell you so, and have simply been suppressing themselves out of fear and finally had enough and 'came out'. So, once you get past puberty and the thought of sex with a male does nothing for you and you dig chicks, you're set for life. 

Vehemently anti gay people jump up and down and scream about being 'forced' to accept gayety, having the Big Gay Agenda 'shoved down their throats' (a fascinating analogy in itself) but, if we look at what gays do compared to what is arrayed against them, accusations of mental illness, restriction, ostrasisation  (sp?) and use of the law to restrict them, it's not exactly the Big Gay Jihad. Worse yet, in the process, what has ended up happening is Christianity has marginalized and reduced itself and I, personally, consider that a bad thing. 

So, it should be fine to think homosexuality is wrong same as adultery or swearing or whatever your faith tells you but, in the US, there is supposed to be the same right to pursue happiness for everyone else, as long as that pursuit is not harming others, as there is for you. 

Baking a cake for gay people is not going to create one more gay person anymore than not baking that cake is going to reduce the number of gays and if you believe otherwise, you really ought to expect a certain amount of fun being made at your expense if you make a big deal about it.


----------



## PsyOps

Larry Gude said:


> Not directed at you but, general comments; There is the issue; why would anyone find fault with it???



From a Christian point of view, and biblically speaking, it’s a sin.


----------



## Larry Gude

PsyOps said:


> From a Christian point of view, and biblically speaking, it’s a sin.



Yeah, and if you're not a Christian, how far do I take demonizing you for happily being gay and balancing that with religious freedom? I put it that way, you, me, to personalize it, not as an insult or inference, that jazz preference deviance not withstanding.


----------



## Zguy28

Larry Gude said:


> Not directed at you but, general comments; There is the issue; why would anyone find fault with it??? It's like finding fault with someones preference for a football team or a wine or a flavor of ice cream or the beach over the mountains. or any other religion.
> 
> Gay people are NOT trying to run Christianity and declare their way THE way. Far from it. They are saying "I don't believe in your faith." Nor are they beating on doors and trying to convert people to their beliefs. Or holding weekly services at the tax free gay church. Or trying to pass constitutional amendments banning heterosexual marriage.
> 
> There are guys and gals who like their sex standard missionary position in their bedroom and late at night and not very often and only to make babies and do NOT like oral sex, anal sex, various positions, sex toys, waxes, oils, candles, adventurous sex or anything else two consenting heterosexual adults can come up with. That is THEIR preference. To them, all the rest in deviant, not normal, queer, odd and so forth. It stands completely to reason that, when it comes to sex, preference is as varied as preferences concerning food, exercise, entertainment, drink or any thing else humans do. So, being nauseous over gay sex, something someone else chooses to do, makes sense in the same way normal people recoil at the thought of scotch or fois gras or riding bicycles or the Dallas Cowboys. However, I don't seek to have those things banned and I have no concern over suddenly liking them against my will and that's another thing;
> 
> People who are viscerally anti gay seem to be coming from the standpoint of fear that they, or their kids, will become infected with the gay gene and suddenly stop liking the opposite sex. That's not how it works. If anything, sexual preference is perhaps the most hard wired of human preference. I can see someone growing to like scotch or riding two wheeled engine-less vehicles or even sorta liking the Cowboys but, sexual intimacy, the only people I've ever known who 'became' gay, always were, will tell you so, and have simply been suppressing themselves out of fear and finally had enough and 'came out'. So, once you get past puberty and the thought of sex with a male does nothing for you and you dig chicks, you're set for life.
> 
> Vehemently anti gay people jump up and down and scream about being 'forced' to accept gayety, having the Big Gay Agenda 'shoved down their throats' (a fascinating analogy in itself) but, if we look at what gays do compared to what is arrayed against them, accusations of mental illness, restriction, ostrasisation  (sp?) and use of the law to restrict them, it's not exactly the Big Gay Jihad. Worse yet, in the process, what has ended up happening is Christianity has marginalized and reduced itself and I, personally, consider that a bad thing.
> 
> So, it should be fine to think homosexuality is wrong same as adultery or swearing or whatever your faith tells you but, in the US, there is supposed to be the same right to pursue happiness for everyone else, as long as that pursuit is not harming others, as there is for you.
> 
> Baking a cake for gay people is not going to create one more gay person anymore than not baking that cake is going to reduce the number of gays and if you believe otherwise, you really ought to expect a certain amount of fun being made at your expense if you make a big deal about it.


Lot to digest on this post, but as with most things, one shouldn't make sweeping statements regarding groups of people. While many are not trying to "run Christianity" others are not so passive. Just search the web on "gay Christians". Or look up Matthew Vines.

Also, certainly a Christian should expect mockery when standing for righteousness, for it is contrary to the world's beliefs.


----------



## baydoll

Beta said:


> We could always go back to where blacks are banned everywhere because white people don't want to sell them anything.  Is it better if we are all allowed to discriminate?  I'm sure someone would turn down bible thumpers too.  Would you organize a rally against them?  Let's call up Westboro Baptist!



Good Morning, Beta! 

Holy Moly those are pretty big Red Herrings you've thrown into the discussion here. 

 But since you've brought them up, I will try and answer them. 

Neither religion nor gay rights have ANYTHING to do with civil rights and you using it is equivalent to someone playing the Race/Hate card.  Hello! This isn't about refusing someone on race.  

Once (or twice, I'm losing count here) again, he didn't refuse service to them because of their sexual orientation or WHO THEY WERE, he refused because he was asked to do something that was against his beliefs. It is not against the Christian faith to do business with gays, but it is against the Christian faith to knowingly participate and profit from a gay marriage or civil union. THAT'S the point.

By the way... I'm finding it SO ironic that most people on this board say these bakers (as well as Christians) are SOOOO hateful and intolerent and discriminating when they themselves are SOOOO hateful and intolerant and discriminating against this baker (and Christians). YOU are the ones forcing us to do something we do not believe in. YOU are the ones who are the bullies here, not us. 

YOU preach at US and tell us not to judge but then have the freaking nerves to JUDGE AND LABEL US by lumping us in with some disgusting looney-tunes hate group (Westboro Baptists). 

But I guess that's okay...


----------



## baydoll

Beta said:


> Ugh, Fox News.  Talk about a misinformed readership.  But thank you for attempting to find something that would help provide further clarification.
> 
> Anyway, my point was that unless the cake was flaming gay where working on it offended him, i.e. something that a straight couple wouldn't order (like a penis cake), then I don't see where he had any complaint or reason not to fulfill the order.  What he decided is that by making a cake, he was somehow promoting a gay wedding, but by offering to make them a bunch of cupcakes for their wedding, that wouldn't be promoting it.  That smells like a completely BS story *made up after the fact* because he needed some kind of bogus excuse.
> 
> Don't believe everything you read.  When it smells like a rat, it's a rat.



And yet you know what really and truly happened! WOW that is truly amazing! You wanna show us ignorant folks where you got your information from Mr. Sees Everything Knows Everything? 

Bogus story? Okay....

http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-orders-colorado-bakery-cater-sex-weddings/story?id=21136505

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/colorado-baker-shut-shopp-serve-gay-couples-article-1.1815868

http://america.aljazeera.com/articl...e-shopmustsellcakestogaycouplejudgerules.html

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2014/05/...dding-cakes-after-losing-discrimination-case/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/09/tony-perkins-gay-boxcars-_n_5473738.html


----------



## baydoll

PsyOps said:


> If you had included the rest of my post ("Do I believe the gay couple would have changed their ways if the owners had baked them a cake and seized that as an opportunity to preach? I doubt it.") you would have had an answer to the 'mind reading' question.
> 
> But that would be part of the conversation if it came up.  IF, the baker had decided to bake the cake for the gay couple 1 of two things likely would have happened:
> 
> 1. The gay couple listened and actually considered what the baker preached to them
> 
> or
> 
> 2. They would have gotten fed up with listeninbly would have said "forget it, we'll go somewhere else for our cake".
> 
> Win - Win!



Actually no. 

Let's put Jesus into this since you brought Him up. Would Jesus condone something He is against?


----------



## Beta

baydoll said:


> Good Morning, Beta!
> 
> Holy Moly those are pretty big Red Herrings you've thrown into the discussion here.
> 
> But since you've brought them up, I will try and answer them.
> 
> Neither religion nor gay rights have ANYTHING to do with civil rights and you using it is equivalent to someone playing the Race/Hate card.  Hello! This isn't about refusing someone on race.
> 
> Once (or twice, I'm losing count here) again, he didn't refuse service to them because of their sexual orientation or WHO THEY WERE, he refused because he was asked to do something that was against his beliefs. It is not against the Christian faith to do business with gays, but it is against the Christian faith to knowingly participate and profit from a gay marriage or civil union. THAT'S the point.
> 
> By the way... I'm finding it SO ironic that most people on this board say these bakers (as well as Christians) are SOOOO hateful and intolerent and discriminating when they themselves are SOOOO hateful and intolerant and discriminating against this baker (and Christians). YOU are the ones forcing us to do something we do not believe in. YOU are the ones who are the bullies here, not us.
> 
> YOU preach at US and tell us not to judge but then have the freaking nerves to JUDGE AND LABEL US by lumping us in with some disgusting looney-tunes hate group (Westboro Baptists).
> 
> But I guess that's okay...



Wait, what...you're not allowed to profit from making a cake for a gay wedding?  That's in the bible?  I'm impressed they had the foresight to write that down.  

You'd like to believe that one type of discrimination (race) is different from another type of discrimination (religion, I guess?), but they're not.  That's why I used that as a very simple comparison.  The Westboro part was obviously hyperbole, but I was trying to point out the potentially slippery slope.

Nobody here is "hating" on Christians or their beliefs.  I still haven't found a Christian belief, other than what you just said, that it's sacrilege to make a cake for a gay couple.



baydoll said:


> And yet you know what really and truly happened! WOW that is truly amazing! You wanna show us ignorant folks where you got your information from Mr. Sees Everything Knows Everything?
> 
> Bogus story? Okay....
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-orders-colorado-bakery-cater-sex-weddings/story?id=21136505
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/colorado-baker-shut-shopp-serve-gay-couples-article-1.1815868
> 
> http://america.aljazeera.com/articl...e-shopmustsellcakestogaycouplejudgerules.html
> 
> http://denver.cbslocal.com/2014/05/...dding-cakes-after-losing-discrimination-case/
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/09/tony-perkins-gay-boxcars-_n_5473738.html



Sorry, I think you misunderstood.  My point is I'm wondering if he made a claim that he would have served them anything other than a wedding cake, but I'm curious if it actually happened.  I just find it to be a thin story.

And HOLY CRAP, that Huffington Post article is beyond offensive!  LGBT is going to lead to human extinction and the ruling in the case is like the HOLOCAUST?  That's LUNACY!


----------



## baydoll

> Explain a reasonable motive where a cake is promoting a gay wedding, but selling them cupcakes for a wedding doesn't promote a gay wedding. Excuse me? Please, make sense of it. If you can, then maybe I'll bite, but I actually put some thought into it. Thanks.



The cake was a special order (with two grooms on top as Zguy mentioned)  and the cupcakes weren't. 

You're welcome.


----------



## baydoll

> Wait, what...you're not allowed to profit from making a cake for a gay wedding? That's in the bible? I'm impressed they had the foresight to write that down.
> 
> You'd like to believe that one type of discrimination (race) is different from another type of discrimination (religion, I guess?), but they're not. That's why I used that as a very simple comparison. The Westboro part was obviously hyperbole, but I was trying to point out the potentially slippery slope.
> 
> Nobody here is "hating" on Christians or their beliefs. I still haven't found a Christian belief, other than what you just said, that it's sacrilege to make a cake for a gay couple.



Don't like to read whole posts I take it.... 

Again since you keep skipping over these parts: 

..he didn't refuse service to them because of their sexual orientation or WHO THEY WERE, he refused because

*he was asked to do something that was against his beliefs*. 

It is not against the Christian faith to do business with gays, but it is against the Christian faith to

* knowingly participate *

and profit from a gay marriage or civil union. THAT'S the point.

(Profit was a bad choice of words.)

And as for the race vs. religion comparison, please re-read the above. AGAIN he didn't refuse service to them because of who they were but because he was asked to do something that was against his beliefs. 

Discrimination would be this :

The bakery had a sign stating THIS ESTABLISHMENT DOES NOT SERVE GAYS. 


You are being totally unfair by judging (and yes you are judging) this man and labeling him as a bigot.


----------



## baydoll

> Sorry, I think you misunderstood. My point is I'm wondering if he made a claim that he would have served them anything other than a wedding cake, but I'm curious if it actually happened. I just find it to be a thin story.
> 
> And HOLY CRAP, that Huffington Post article is beyond offensive! LGBT is going to lead to human extinction and the ruling in the case is like the HOLOCAUST? That's LUNACY!



I don't know what to tell you then, Beta. What sources do you like?


----------



## PsyOps

baydoll said:


> Actually no.
> 
> Let's put Jesus into this since you brought Him up. Would Jesus condone something He is against?



You're not really paying attention to what I'm posting.  Because you served someone does not mean you condone their behavior.  Did Jesus condone adultery?  Yet he still forgave her and told her to sin no more.  He did not turn her away, he did not demand she be stoned (as their law demanded); he loved her and had mercy on her.  But he did not condone her behavior.

And didn't put Jesus into this; Jesus was in this from the beginning by default.


----------



## PsyOps

Larry Gude said:


> Yeah, and if you're not a Christian, how far do I take demonizing you for happily being gay and balancing that with religious freedom? I put it that way, you, me, to personalize it, not as an insult or inference, that jazz preference deviance not withstanding.



I’m coming strictly from a biblical standpoint.  I hold the same view of Christians that demonize gays as I do gays that are fanatical about demanding everyone accept their lifestyle.  But, in today’s America it has become acceptable to openly talk about homosexuality while considered taboo to openly talk about God.  It's acceptable to shove the gay lifestyle down everyone's throat, but don't dare do the same with God.  In fact, it's has become a requirement to vilify anyone that dare speak out against gays while promoting the vilification of Christianity.

And jazz is GOD'S music!


----------



## Beta

Anyway...this is getting nowhere.  I'm reading everything and trying to make points, but as long as you're blind toward faith then anything I say doesn't really matter.  So let me break it down more simply.  If anything we do is OK for religious purposes, then is it OK to blow people up in the name of jihad?  Is it OK to kill abortion doctors who are breaking the Christian faith, or tar & feather them, or maybe just break a window in their business and try to get them to leave town?  Where do you draw the line?  Here's an even less extreme example: Non-Muslims aren't allowed to go to Mecca.  What if Muslims took over your apartment/neighborhood/whatever and you were thrown out of your home for being Christian?  Would you be OK if you were banned and having to relocate because you're a Christian?  If they believe you're an "infidel" and unclean and can't live near them, then that's their belief and it's OK, right?

My point is simple.  Until you get picked on because of your religion, race, or whatever stupid thing some asshat wants to make you feel bad about, you can't really talk about how it's "ok" for someone to use anything as their reason for discrimination.  Once it happens to you, you know how it feels, and you realize it really can dehumanize you, you might feel differently.  But most people in here haven't really experienced that, so they haven't a clue.


----------



## Beta

PsyOps said:


> You're not really paying attention to what I'm posting.  Because you served someone does not mean you condone their behavior.  Did Jesus condone adultery?  Yet he still forgave her and told her to sin no more.  He did not turn her away, he did not demand she be stoned (as their law demanded); he loved her and had mercy on her.  But he did not condone her behavior.
> 
> And didn't put Jesus into this; Jesus was in this from the beginning by default.



Indeed...wasn't it something like "let the non-sinner throw the first stone?"  Because we're supposed to be loving towards our neighbors.  If Christians are supposed to walk in Jesus' footsteps and live up to that standard, how does Christianity also tell people it's OK not to do what Jesus would have done?  Simple answer: it doesn't.  The guy wasn't being a CHRISTian.


----------



## Amused_despair

Beta said:


> Indeed...wasn't it something like "let the non-sinner throw the first stone?"  Because we're supposed to be loving towards our neighbors.  If Christians are supposed to walk in Jesus' footsteps and live up to that standard, how does Christianity also tell people it's OK not to do what Jesus would have done?  Simple answer: it doesn't.  The guy wasn't being a CHRISTian.



"let the first one amongst you who has not eaten bacon or shrimp or worked on the Sabbath be the first one to deny the gay person their cake"  yeah, don't see that happening.


----------



## Beta

Amused_despair said:


> "let the first one amongst you who has not eaten bacon or shrimp or worked on the Sabbath be the first one to deny the gay person their cake"  yeah, don't see that happening.



Ed Zachary!


----------



## Makavide

PsyOps said:


> You're not really paying attention to what I'm posting.  Because you served someone does not mean you condone their behavior.  Did Jesus condone adultery?  Yet he still forgave her and told her to sin no more.  He did not turn her away, he did not demand she be stoned (as their law demanded); he loved her and had mercy on her.  But he did not condone her behavior.



But when he encountered other sinners - he whipped them.....




> John 2:13 - 15
> When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem.  In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money.  So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.


----------



## Hank

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/yv2g56/gaywatch---texas-edition--remember-the-no-homo


----------



## Gilligan

Amused_despair said:


> "let the first one amongst you who has not eaten bacon or shrimp or worked on the Sabbath be the first one to deny the gay person their cake"



  Corinthians?....Shriners?


----------



## Amused_despair

Makavide said:


> But when he encountered other sinners - he whipped them.....



actually, didn't Jesus use the whip to drive the cattle and sheep as he over threw the tables?  I don't think the Bible ever says he used the whip on the people themselves.


----------



## PsyOps

Makavide said:


> But when he encountered other sinners - he whipped them.....



Devoid of a better answer for this... Perhaps Jesus saw a huge difference between someone who commits a sin, and someone who defiles the temple for financial gain.


----------



## Amused_despair

PsyOps said:


> Devoid of a better answer for this... Perhaps Jesus saw a huge difference between someone who commits a sin, and someone who defiles the temple for financial gain.



Jesus did not seem to be known for a high tolerance for hypocrites


----------



## Merlin99

baydoll said:


> Good Morning, Beta!
> 
> Holy Moly those are pretty big Red Herrings you've thrown into the discussion here.
> 
> But since you've brought them up, I will try and answer them.
> 
> Neither religion nor gay rights have ANYTHING to do with civil rights and you using it is equivalent to someone playing the Race/Hate card.  Hello! This isn't about refusing someone on race.
> 
> Once (or twice, I'm losing count here) again, he didn't refuse service to them because of their sexual orientation or WHO THEY WERE, he refused because he was asked to do something that was against his beliefs. It is not against the Christian faith to do business with gays, but it is against the Christian faith to knowingly participate and profit from a gay marriage or civil union. THAT'S the point.
> 
> By the way... I'm finding it SO ironic that most people on this board say these bakers (as well as Christians) are SOOOO hateful and intolerent and discriminating when they themselves are SOOOO hateful and intolerant and discriminating against this baker (and Christians). YOU are the ones forcing us to do something we do not believe in. YOU are the ones who are the bullies here, not us.
> 
> YOU preach at US and tell us not to judge but then have the freaking nerves to JUDGE AND LABEL US by lumping us in with some disgusting looney-tunes hate group (Westboro Baptists).
> 
> But I guess that's okay...


I have to disagree with your logic that gay rights and civil rights are fundamentally different, even though I agree that the government shouldn't have a say in who a business does business with. You either agree with free market capitalism or communism, half measures just leaves the door open for lawyers to muck up everything.


----------



## Zguy28

Merlin99 said:


> I have to disagree with your logic that gay rights and civil rights are fundamentally different, even though I agree that the government shouldn't have a say in who a business does business with. You either agree with free market capitalism or communism, half measures just leaves the door open for lawyers to muck up everything.


And its all academic really, the law is the law is the law. Whether you disagree with it or not, if you break it, you face the punishment. And right now the law declares that sexual preference is a protected class on the same level as race. And the interpretation of that is far ranging.


----------



## Larry Gude

PsyOps said:


> I’m coming strictly from a biblical standpoint.  I hold the same view of Christians that demonize gays as I do gays that are fanatical about demanding everyone accept their lifestyle.  But, in today’s America it has become acceptable to openly talk about homosexuality while considered taboo to openly talk about God.  It's acceptable to shove the gay lifestyle down everyone's throat, but don't dare do the same with God.  In fact, it's has become a requirement to vilify anyone that dare speak out against gays while promoting the vilification of Christianity.
> 
> And jazz is GOD'S music!



Ok, there is a simple perception problem here. How many religious shows are on TV? How hard is it to find radio promoting Christ? How many Churches are there? Are people freely and openly congregating at them? How often does a President publicly say "God bless America"? Billboards? Going door to door seeking converts? How about tax benefits? 

It is silly to argue Christianity can't be talked about, openly, in public. Further, it is silly to argue that there is ANY comparison to how ingrained into the fabric of daily life the homosexual 'agenda' is when measure against Christianity unless that comparison says 'not much' for homosexuality and 'a whole bunch' for Christianity.


----------



## PsyOps

Larry Gude said:


> Ok, there is a simple perception problem here. How many religious shows are on TV? How hard is it to find radio promoting Christ? How many Churches are there? Are people freely and openly congregating at them? How often does a President publicly say "God bless America"? Billboards? Going door to door seeking converts? How about tax benefits?
> 
> It is silly to argue Christianity can't be talked about, openly, in public. Further, it is silly to argue that there is ANY comparison to how ingrained into the fabric of daily life the homosexual 'agenda' is when measure against Christianity unless that comparison says 'not much' for homosexuality and 'a whole bunch' for Christianity.



Small pieces at a time Larry.  They antis have managed to remove it from our schools, no prayers before games or any other event, Christmas is slowly being reduced to ‘Holiday’.  They know they can’t go after the churches and TV shows yet.  First there has to be a large enough base of hatred towards Christianity.  They aren’t there yet.  With everything, progressive are patient and chip away at their agendas slowly.

I’m talking about a growing mentality though… it is becoming increasingly popular to talk positively about homosexuality while increasingly popular to vilify religion – particularly Christianity.


----------



## Larry Gude

PsyOps said:


> Small pieces at a time Larry.  They antis have managed to remove it from our schools, no prayers before games or any other event, Christmas is slowly being reduced to ‘Holiday’.  They know they can’t go after the churches and TV shows yet.  First there has to be a large enough base of hatred towards Christianity.  They aren’t there yet.  With everything, progressive are patient and chip away at their agendas slowly.
> 
> I’m talking about a growing mentality though… it is becoming increasingly popular to talk positively about homosexuality while increasingly popular to vilify religion – particularly Christianity.



I would agree that the tide is turning but, I don't agree that Christ is banished from public and only gay can be spoken or anything close to it. 

In the mean time, if I were trying to reverse that trend or, at least protect the faith, I would not be happy that people are taking these enormous moral stands against baking cakes for homos nor would I be happy that candidates for office claim God built in an anti pregnancy in case of rape gene nor would I be pursing Constitutional banning of gay marriage and, if I did, I sure as hell wouldn't be shocked were the other side to push back. 

If Christianity is losing ground, it is every bit as much because of behavior of many in the faith who are all for religious freedom as long as you choose their faith as it is because of the Big Gay Tide. 
Frankly, it is more so the fault of people who claim to be of the faith. Can you imagine where we'd be on this social battle if Christians said, in response to gay marriage, the following;



Good for you!


----------



## SamSpade

Larry Gude said:


> Not directed at you but, general comments; There is the issue; why would anyone find fault with it??? It's like finding fault with someones preference for a football team or a wine or a flavor of ice cream or the beach over the mountains. or any other religion.



This is the sort of thing I come across all the time. YOU can't comprehend it, because you have a different perspective. You equate sexual preference to preferring the beach over the mountains, or the choice of a football team. That's your understanding. If that was everyone's, your argument would be 100% valid. When I discuss politics with someone who is decidedly liberal, I often have the same thing - since they can't grasp a different perspective, they reason it must point to a fault in CHARACTER. Or lack of information. Or they were TAUGHT that way - or they've been sold a bill of goods by the likes of - well, you know the rest. When I get into discussions with liberals, they can't see that I basically don't trust government to run my life - I'd rather suffer alone than have someone tell me what to do.

I used to believe all kinds of things about homosexuality. In grade school I came across kids all the time who did not fit in socially with others of the same gender, so from the perspective of a fifth grader and up - they chose to EMBRACE their feminine side rather than man up and stop being a cry-baby. (Try to remember, this is the point of view of a kid who barely understands sexuality). YOU learned to take a punch. YOU learned to hit back and stand up for yourself - but crybaby ran to the girls for sympathy and tattled to the teacher. You learned to REALLY dislike effeminate kids. The only time you liked them was when they got picked AFTER you on sports teams.

So I grew up until college believing that gayness was just weak kids who embraced the other side. It was a character flaw, to me. Once I joined a church that declared it a de facto sin, that made it that much easier to dislike them.
Then of course, I met a gay man in college who woudn't take no for an answer. And a gay orderly who did stuff while I was too inebriated to stop him. Made me downright hate them.

So - I "get" the religious angle of religious people. When you've been on the receiving end of some bad stuff from gays, it's hard to see them all as wanting to just be left alone.

What I get from Christy's original question is, what is it about gayness that puts it so high up on the list of things Christian groups malign? And aside from the things I mentioned, it's because society is asking them to accept it as ok. Most people aren't crazy about adultery, even if it goes on all around them. You find it really uncomfortable to deal with friends who don't know their spouses are cheating on them. I can absolutely tell you, Christians in evangelical churches take a dim view of that, and sometimes humiliate them in public over it. To them, it's not "ok". Most other "sins" people sort of recognize as wrong, even if they do it themselves. You feel bad about it. You say you're sorry. You recognize, "this is wrong" even if you can't seem to help it. 

Christian groups don't like the "agenda" because they see it directed at society and future generations. They don't like the idea of society accepting that it is "ok". 

We have the same thing in other religions. We think IT is also weird. Remember bin Laden's manifesto? Aside from other objections, he didn't like the violations of Islam and sins against Allah he saw in the West. 

I have the same perspective as many do - if you can keep your religion to yourself without assaulting or injuring others - believe what you want. The New Testament implores Christians to not be a part of this world (as far as being caught up in what it defines as right and wrong) but to still live in it, that they might attract others to the gospel by their lives. It's not up to them to change society, because they can't. You change *people*. Stick with that.


----------



## Larry Gude

SamSpade said:


> This is the sort of thing I come across all the time. YOU can't comprehend it, because you have a different perspective.  .



Right, but, I assume most people are like me; what you don't comprehend or understand is instantly interesting. I didn't comprehend homosexuality when I was younger. Then, I learned it's just as natural as my natural attraction to women. I am fortunate to have a gay brother so that I learned this much sooner than many would. So, now, the overt hostility to homosexuals by Christians. If you're not for religious freedom, it makes sense. If you are, it doesn't. Just like attraction to same sex. I don't 'get it' as I am not gay but, I do understand it. Same as the dislike of gays. I don't understand it but, I do get it. 

It's why I love a good debate; I wanna learn something. That's not to say I am easily convinced. It is to say I to hear conviction and honestly held beliefs and not a bunch of bumper sticker sheep faith.


----------



## Larry Gude

SamSpade said:


> This is the sort of thing I come across all the time. YOU can't comprehend it, because you have a different perspective. You equate sexual preference to preferring the beach over the mountains, or the choice of a football team.  .



When it comes specifically to sexual preference, if you meant me in particular, I long ago learned that gay people look at the same sex like I look at the opposite sex. Why some religious people can't, or won't comprehend that simple reality is the fascinating part of this. Using football and other analogies is only part of trying to make the point but, the bottom line is gay people look at the same sex, in general, as heterosexuals see the opposite sex.


----------



## PsyOps

Larry Gude said:


> I would agree that the tide is turning but, I don't agree that Christ is banished from public and only gay can be spoken or anything close to it.
> 
> In the mean time, if I were trying to reverse that trend or, at least protect the faith, I would not be happy that people are taking these enormous moral stands against baking cakes for homos nor would I be happy that candidates for office claim God built in an anti pregnancy in case of rape gene nor would I be pursing Constitutional banning of gay marriage and, if I did, I sure as hell wouldn't be shocked were the other side to push back.
> 
> If Christianity is losing ground, it is every bit as much because of behavior of many in the faith who are all for religious freedom as long as you choose their faith as it is because of the Big Gay Tide.
> Frankly, it is more so the fault of people who claim to be of the faith. Can you imagine where we'd be on this social battle if Christians said, in response to gay marriage, the following;
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you!



Whereas you may not like how this goes: Christians largely place all sins in one pot; as we believe God does.  We don’t believe God differentiates between homosexual behavior and murder.  I know in our world they are hugely different; but in terms of the things that separate us from God, homosexuality causes just as much separation from God as murder.  So, as God is looking down on us, we can’t, in our own conscience, say “Good for you”.  I mean what makes us happy while making God unhappy, isn’t this the antithesis of being a Christian?


----------



## Larry Gude

PsyOps said:


> Whereas you may not like how this goes: Christians largely place all sins in one pot; as we believe God does.  We don’t believe God differentiates between homosexual behavior and murder.  I know in our world they are hugely different; but in terms of the things that separate us from God, homosexuality causes just as much separation from God as murder.  So, as God is looking down on us, we can’t, in our own conscience, say “Good for you”.  I mean what makes us happy while making God unhappy, isn’t this the antithesis of being a Christian?



OK, so, how do you, how does the faith, in your view, reconcile non believers? As murderers? And I don't mean as a practical matter in our modern world but, as a matter of what you are saying, what it is supposed to be?


----------



## baydoll

Merlin99 said:


> I have to disagree with your logic that gay rights and civil rights are fundamentally different, even though I agree that the government shouldn't have a say in who a business does business with. You either agree with free market capitalism or communism, half measures just leaves the door open for lawyers to muck up everything.



Ask someone (preferably a black person) what they think of your statement Merlin. You cannot compare what the blacks have gone through with that of gays, I'm sorry. There is no comparison. With all due respect to whatever injustices gays have suffered - and there has been many  (and my heart goes out to them and I wish it wasn't so,  BELIEVE ME), they can't even be compared to the struggles blacks have endured here in the United States. 

How many gays have been taken from their homelands against their will and forced to work as slaves? How many gays have been considered someone's piece of property? When has it ever been legal to beat, torture or kill them? When have gays been given separate drinking fountains to drink from as well as separate schools, parks, restaurants so on and so forth? When have they ever been denied the rights to vote? 

Being gay isn't race, color, religion, or national origin, it is a behavior. And claiming behavior as a 'protected class' will open doors to places we do not even want to go to. (Where do you draw the line?)

But hey I agree with the rest of your post though - the government has NO RIGHTS to dictate to us how to run our lives and certainly not our businesses. America was founded on personal freedom and liberty (well hey, it used to be anyway) and forcing a business owner to perform a service for an individual, FOR WHATEVER REASON, infringes upon that business owner's liberty and freedom.


----------



## SamSpade

Larry Gude said:


> When it comes specifically to sexual preference, if you meant me in particular, I long ago learned that gay people look at the same sex like I look at the opposite sex. Why some religious people can't, or won't comprehend that simple reality is the fascinating part of this.



There are people who look at little children or sheep in the same way. KNOWING that doesn't make it more palatable. I accept gayness on the part that it has a biological basis that is approaching ironclad soundness, whereas previously I looked upon it as mental illness brought on by years of influence and bad decisions - much like, say, being grossly overweight.


----------



## PsyOps

Larry Gude said:


> OK, so, how do you, how does the faith, in your view, reconcile non believers? As murderers? And I don't mean as a practical matter in our modern world but, as a matter of what you are saying, what it is supposed to be?



We don’t.  In the military we’re all one of the same purpose.  We joined to serve our country, in a secular manner.  Sure, some may pray for victory and for their own safety; but not so they can fight and spread Christianity.  We pray to win to preserve our way of life in this country.  We do not receive orders “Onward Christian soldier…”  And our non-believers do not receive a “thank you non-believer for fighting our great crusade to spread Christianity around the world”.  And when we come home the people do not see us as ‘Christian soldiers’, they see us as Americans defend a nation.  

I am a Christian and served 20 years, and not once did I consider what I was doing as a means to spread my faith to any other country.  I served in defense of my country; that’s it!


----------



## b23hqb

Zguy28 said:


> Lot to digest on this post, but as with most things, one shouldn't make sweeping statements regarding groups of people. While many are not trying to "run Christianity" others are not so passive. Just search the web on "gay Christians". Or look up Matthew Vines.
> 
> *Also, certainly a Christian should expect mockery when standing for righteousness, for it is contrary to the world's beliefs.*



That sentence says it all to the world, Z. Christians are not of this world, the world hates us and what we stand for, simply because the world hates God and His Light. Many will will not understand that it is that simple - if one does not love and follow God, the only alternative is they hate Him.

This thread has rolled on, and we stand where we stand, either side of the issue.


----------



## baydoll

PsyOps said:


> You're not really paying attention to what I'm posting.  Because you served someone does not mean you condone their behavior.  Did Jesus condone adultery?  Yet he still forgave her and told her to sin no more.  He did not turn her away, he did not demand she be stoned (as their law demanded); he loved her and had mercy on her.  But he did not condone her behavior.
> 
> And didn't put Jesus into this; Jesus was in this from the beginning by default.



And again, the baker had no problem serving gays in his place of business, he refused to do / make something that would have violated his conscience. Do you think Jesus would have wanted this baker to do something that was totally against his beliefs? Seriously? 

Jesus loved the sinner, but He also stood His ground when it came to defiling the things of God.  

To serve these people a wedding cake is to say we (as Christians)  approve of their sin. Is this the message Jesus would want these gay folks to have? That it is okay for then to continue to do something God says is a huge NO NO? 

I think NOT. 

No the message should be this: they will die in their sins should they continue this apart from Christ.

I would much rather they live. If I'm branded as hateful and intolerant and a bigot for telling them this then so be it. I would STILL much rather they live rather than die in their sins. 

God's Word has NOTHING positive to say about the unrepentant homosexual or otherwise. There is only the expectation of judgment. To hint at anything less is being dishonest. AND hateful.


----------



## baydoll

Beta said:


> Indeed...wasn't it something like "let the non-sinner throw the first stone?"  Because we're supposed to be loving towards our neighbors.  If Christians are supposed to walk in Jesus' footsteps and live up to that standard, how does Christianity also tell people it's OK not to do what Jesus would have done?  Simple answer: it doesn't.  The guy wasn't being a CHRISTian.



Is it loving to not warn a person they are in danger of hellfire? Or is that being intolerant, hateful, not CHRIST-like ?


----------



## PsyOps

baydoll said:


> And again, the baker had no problem serving gays in his place of business, he refused to do / make something that would have violated his conscience. Do you think Jesus would have wanted this baker to do something that was totally against his beliefs? Seriously?
> 
> Jesus loved the sinner, but He also stood His ground when it came to defiling the things of God.
> 
> To serve these people a wedding cake is to say we (as Christians)  approve of their sin. Is this the message Jesus would want these gay folks to have? That it is okay for then to continue to do something God says is a huge NO NO?
> 
> I think NOT.
> 
> No the message should be this: they will die in their sins should they continue this apart from Christ.
> 
> I would much rather they live. If I'm branded as hateful and intolerant and a bigot for telling them this then so be it. I would STILL much rather they live rather than die in their sins.
> 
> God's Word has NOTHING positive to say about the unrepentant homosexual or otherwise. There is only the expectation of judgment. To hint at anything less is being dishonest. AND hateful.



You’re conflating the issue.  There was no real way of distinguishing one customer from another walking around their bakery; so serving gays – an ordinary customer – is not at issue here.  But I’d submit to you, if they had a problem serving gays in one capacity they would certainly have a problem with it all the way around; it’s just a matter of what they could actually do about it.

Again… Jesus would have baked the cake and used it as an opportunity to minister, just as he did with the rich man, as he did with the prostitute, as he did with the adulteress, as he did even when he was on the cross.  He touched unclean people, he healed on the Sabbath, he took in the lowest of the low as disciples.  What about the 500 Jesus fed.  No doubt there were all manner of people in that crowd.  Do you doubt there may have even been some gay people there, some murderers, some thieves, some adulterers...?

“To serve these people a wedding cake is to say we (as Christians)  approve of their sin”… then that would mean even having gays in their store would be condoning sin.  You admitted they had no problem serving gays… by your own words they are condoning sin by serving gays.


----------



## Toxick

baydoll said:


> Is it loving to not warn a person they are in danger of hellfire? Or is that being intolerant, hateful, not CHRIST-like ?





I would daresay that in the year 2014 every man, woman and child has heard of Jesus. 
I would venture further and say that every homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, or what-have-you, are all well aware that what they are doing makes Baby Jesus cry.



The Good News of our Lord is Spread. It's done. Mission accomplished.

Anyone who chooses to engage in sinful behavior is doing so with the conscious *knowledge* of the consequences, whether or not they believe the consequences are real.



Warning individuals that they are in danger of hell is just piling on at this point, and it's unnecessary.





They will NOT change for you.

They will NOT change for me.

They will NOT change for God.




_God grant me the serenity to *accept the things I cannot change*._




Worry about your own genitals and move on with life, says I.


----------



## baydoll

PsyOps said:


> You’re conflating the issue.  There was no real way of distinguishing one customer from another walking around their bakery; so serving gays – an ordinary customer – is not at issue here.  But I’d submit to you, if they had a problem serving gays in one capacity they would certainly have a problem with it all the way around; it’s just a matter of what they could actually do about it.



Serving gays period IS the issue here because YOU'VE made it an issue. Again, the issue in this particular case was not about serving someone because of who he is, it was because the owner was asked to contribute to something that is against his beliefs. Night and day. 

I posted this several pages back but I'll post it again:

I have a gay son. I love my gay son. I love him for who he IS and I love his gay friends for who THEY are AS PEOPLE. I have NO problems going out with them, having them in my home, going on vacations with them, having them attend family gatherings on and on... But I DO have a problem with WHAT THEY DO. If my son ever approached me and said that he and his SO (whom I also love dearly) were getting married and asked me to attend I would say NO. NOT because of who they are but because of WHAT THEY DO.

Are you getting it now?


----------



## Larry Gude

PsyOps said:


> We don’t.  In the military we’re all one of the same purpose.  We joined to serve our country, in a secular manner.  Sure, some may pray for victory and for their own safety; but not so they can fight and spread Christianity.  We pray to win to preserve our way of life in this country.  We do not receive orders “Onward Christian soldier…”  And our non-believers do not receive a “thank you non-believer for fighting our great crusade to spread Christianity around the world”.  And when we come home the people do not see us as ‘Christian soldiers’, they see us as Americans defend a nation.
> 
> I am a Christian and served 20 years, and not once did I consider what I was doing as a means to spread my faith to any other country.  I served in defense of my country; that’s it!



OK, I think we have it covered how YOU see it. Now, if we can just convince them, peace will be at hand!


----------



## baydoll

Toxick said:


> I would daresay that in the year 2014 every man, woman and child has heard of Jesus.
> I would venture further and say that every homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, or what-have-you, are all well aware that what they are doing makes Baby Jesus cry.
> 
> 
> 
> The Good News of our Lord is Spread. It's done. Mission accomplished.
> 
> Anyone who chooses to engage in sinful behavior is doing so with the conscious *knowledge* of the consequences, whether or not they believe the consequences are real.
> 
> 
> 
> Warning individuals that they are in danger of hell is just piling on at this point, and it's unnecessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They will NOT change for you.
> 
> They will NOT change for me.
> 
> They will NOT change for God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _God grant me the serenity to *accept the things I cannot change*._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Worry about your own genitals and move on with life, says I.



Oh I see...so are you God? 

How do you know they will not change?

Are you All Knowing, All Seeing as well?

I changed. Someone had the guts (and love) to tell ME I was in danger of Hellfire and told me about this Savior who died for me and my sins. I had no idea I was headed in that direction prior to that. I thank God that person had the guts to warn me.  

Or am I an exception to your rule?


----------



## baydoll

PsyOps said:


> “To serve these people a wedding cake is to say we (as Christians)  approve of their sin”… then that would mean even having gays in their store would be condoning sin.  You admitted they had no problem serving gays… by your own words they are condoning sin by serving gays.



Again, since this seems to be a blind spot with you, PsyOps, I stand in agreement with you that we should be like Jesus in that He ate with sinners, WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. We are to go out and befriend all people no matter who they are.  We have NOTHING AGAINST THESE PEOPLE THEMSELVES (see my prior post to you.) BUT! What we DO have a problem with is being forced to DO SOMETHING THAT IS AGAINST WHAT WE BELIEVE IS SIN. In this case GAY MARRIAGE. THAT'S the issue here, not the people themselves.

Good GRIEF!!!


----------



## Amused_despair

baydoll said:


> Oh I see...so are you God?
> 
> How do you know they will not change?
> 
> Are you All Knowing, All Seeing as well?
> 
> I changed. Someone had the guts (and love) to tell ME I was in danger of Hellfire and told me about this Savior who died for me and my sins. I had no idea I was headed in that direction prior to that. I thank God that person had the guts to warn me.
> 
> Or am I an exception to your rule?



Did they refuse to make you a cake unless you changed?  

The question is, "what is it about gays?"  Why is it OK to bake s cake for atheists,  non-Christians, people who covet their neighbor's wife, people who eat shellfish, etc, etc? Since Catholics use graven images (against the Old Testament) and pray in repetitive prayers (which Jesus discouraged), is it OK to bake cakes for them too? Why is the line drawn at gays? Why not at people swear oaths?  People who hoard wealth? People who make a huge deal about being religious so that everyone knows instead of fasting quietly and giving alms so secretly that the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing?   Why are gays the target and not the rest?


----------



## baydoll

PsyOps said:


> Again… Jesus would have baked the cake and used it as an opportunity to minister, just as he did with the rich man, as he did with the prostitute, as he did with the adulteress, as he did even when he was on the cross.  He touched unclean people, he healed on the Sabbath, he took in the lowest of the low as disciples.  What about the 500 Jesus fed.  No doubt there were all manner of people in that crowd.  Do you doubt there may have even been some gay people there, some murderers, some thieves, some adulterers...?



But you are forgetting Jesus did not STOP there. He also warned people to "unless you repent, you too will all perish."  Luke 13:3

and

If your right eye offends you, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your body parts should perish, rather than your whole body should be cast into hell. Mat 5:29.

As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and *repent*. Rev 3:19


Why do you call Me, Lord, Lord, and not do (practice, obey ) what I tell you? Luke 6:46

Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. Mat 7:13-14. 

If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it. Mat 16:24-25

Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. John 3:5-6 


Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22“Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23“And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’ Matt 7

and many, many more such as these.


----------



## baydoll

Amused_despair said:


> Did they refuse to make you a cake unless you changed?



That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.





> The question is, "what is it about gays?" Why is it OK to bake s cake for atheists, non-Christians, people who covet their neighbor's wife, people who eat shellfish, etc, etc? Since Catholics use graven images (against the Old Testament) and pray in repetitive prayers (which Jesus discouraged), is it OK to bake cakes for them too? Why is the line drawn at gays? Why not at people swear oaths? People who hoard wealth? People who make a huge deal about being religious so that everyone knows instead of fasting quietly and giving alms so secretly that the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing? Why are gays the target and not the rest?



Oh my freaking goodness! 

AGAIN this is NOT about not serving GAYS but about forcing someone to DO SOMETHING THAT IS AGAINST SOMEONE'S BELIEFS in this case GAY MARRIAGES.

I mean seriously, is it really that hard for some of you to comprehend? Even my GAY SON AND HIS FRIENDS get it.


----------



## Toxick

baydoll said:


> Oh I see...so are you God?



Where in the bloody #### did you get that?





baydoll said:


> How do you know they will not change?



Historical evidence?





baydoll said:


> Are you All Knowing, All Seeing as well?




Yeah - sure.



baydoll said:


> I changed. Someone had the guts (and love) to tell ME I was in danger of Hellfire and told me about this Savior who died for me and my sins. I had no idea I was headed in that direction prior to that. I thank God that person had the guts to warn me.
> 
> Or am I an exception to your rule?



You must be.


----------



## baydoll

Don't stop there! (Amused person) 

What would happen if those VERY SAME PEOPLE tried to force a Muslim run bakery to make THEM a freaking wedding cake? 
Gee I wonder how well THAT would turn out. 

Why is it only the CHRISTIAN BUSINESSES AND THE CHRISTIANS THEMSELVES THAT ARE ALWAYS SINGLED OUT?


----------



## baydoll

Toxick said:


> Where in the bloody #### did you get that?
> 
> 
> .



From this:

Warning individuals that they are in danger of hell is just piling on at this point, and it's unnecessary.





 They will NOT change for you.

 They will NOT change for me.

 They will NOT change for God.


----------



## baydoll

Toxick said:


> historical evidence



Me. As well as thousands of other changed individuals that at one point in their lives ignorant of God and His Ways.


----------



## baydoll

Toxick said:


> You must be.



So are many many others who agree with me and disagree with you.


----------



## Amused_despair

baydoll said:


> Don't stop there! (Amused person)
> 
> What would happen if those VERY SAME PEOPLE tried to force a Muslim run bakery to make THEM a freaking wedding cake?
> Gee I wonder how well THAT would turn out.
> 
> Why is it only the CHRISTIAN BUSINESSES AND THE CHRISTIANS THEMSELVES THAT ARE ALWAYS SINGLED OUT?



Is there a Muslim bakery in that city?  I am sure it would be the same response. It is a shame that the fundamentalists have taken over Islam.  In the Dark and Middle Ages Islam was more tolerant of other religions than the Christian kingdoms. Jews and Christians could pay a tax and live in peace in Muslim lands.  Jews were tortured, killed, or driven out of Christian lands.  The Christian west has matured and the Islamic east has regressed. The difference is the Christian lands have separated religion and law, while the Islamic countries are combining the two even more.


----------



## PsyOps

baydoll said:


> Again, since this seems to be a blind spot with you, PsyOps, I stand in agreement with you that we should be like Jesus in that He ate with sinners, WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. We are to go out and befriend all people no matter who they are.  We have NOTHING AGAINST THESE PEOPLE THEMSELVES (see my prior post to you.) BUT! What we DO have a problem with is being forced to DO SOMETHING THAT IS AGAINST WHAT WE BELIEVE IS SIN. In this case GAY MARRIAGE. THAT'S the issue here, not the people themselves.
> 
> Good GRIEF!!!



Well, for the record I stated a long time ago in this thread that I support the baker on constitutional grounds.  It should be their right to not serve anyone they don’t want to serve.  So, is this a constitutional discussion or a Christian discussions?  I thought it was a Christian discussion.  

In the end… we live in America where we have rights; and I don’t believe one of those is that we get to walk in any place and expect to be served.  I as a consumer do not own the establishment I am walking into; so I don’t get to make their rules for them.  AND, we have that pesky little 1st amendment where government doesn’t get to come into a private business and tell them they can’t operate their business in a manner that they feel is consistent with their faith.

All that being said, I think it’s poor business practice and I think it exhibits poor Christian values to not serve people.  I’m not going to change my mind on this.


----------



## Toxick

baydoll said:


> From this:
> 
> Warning individuals that they are in danger of hell is just piling on at this point, and it's unnecessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They will NOT change for you.
> 
> They will NOT change for me.
> 
> They will NOT change for God.





That's quite a leap.



And perhaps my first sentence is a bit ambiguous and I'm painting with too broad a brush. 
Individuals "who've made up their minds" - is a more accurate subject of that sentence.


----------



## Toxick

baydoll said:


> Me. As well as thousands of other changed individuals that at one point in their lives ignorant of God and His Ways.





Can you be more specific about what you mean by "ignorant of God and His Ways".




Because it seems like you're comparing "Not Born Again" vs. "Born Again"
Where I'm talking about "Never heard of God" vs "Have Heard of God".





There may be some kid living who was raised by lemurs or something in the Amazon wilderness who's never heard of God, but I sincerely doubt there's a significant portion of the population who has never been exposed to Christianity.


----------



## b23hqb

Toxick said:


> Can you be more specific about what you mean by "ignorant of God and His Ways".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it seems like you're comparing "Not Born Again" vs. "Born Again"
> Where I'm talking about "Never heard of God" vs "Have Heard of God".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There may be some kid living who was raised by lemurs or something in the Amazon wilderness who's never heard of God, but I sincerely doubt there's a significant portion of the population who has never been exposed to Christianity.



Agree with the uninformed part. However, in this day and age of instant electronic communication, it is more and more unlikely that no one in a comprehending mental status has not heard the Word. So many, of course, just choose to reject it out of hand.

Ignorance does not mean not knowing. Just that they ignore it, discard it, by choice. That person just chooses to ignore what He says.

Jesus would not have baked a cake. That would shatter the foundations of his holy, righteous and just Father. By doing that, they would have been rewarded for their sin. Nowhere in the Bible is sin rewarded. 

Jesus would have tossed them a cake of parable proportions,  making them think about what they desired in relation to the Word, and simply told them to go forth and sin no more.

That'll go over big in their communi-tuh! Lawsuit! Demonstrations! Destroy those who disagree!

Win-win situation for all Christians for eternity, but not so much here, where we are told persecution and suffering is to be expected from the world.


----------



## Merlin99

baydoll said:


> Ask someone (preferably a black person) what they think of your statement Merlin. You cannot compare what the blacks have gone through with that of gays, I'm sorry. There is no comparison. With all due respect to whatever injustices gays have suffered - and there has been many  (and my heart goes out to them and I wish it wasn't so,  BELIEVE ME), they can't even be compared to the struggles blacks have endured here in the United States.
> 
> How many gays have been taken from their homelands against their will and forced to work as slaves? How many gays have been considered someone's piece of property? When has it ever been legal to beat, torture or kill them? When have gays been given separate drinking fountains to drink from as well as separate schools, parks, restaurants so on and so forth? When have they ever been denied the rights to vote?
> 
> Being gay isn't race, color, religion, or national origin, it is a behavior. And claiming behavior as a 'protected class' will open doors to places we do not even want to go to. (Where do you draw the line?)
> 
> But hey I agree with the rest of your post though - the government has NO RIGHTS to dictate to us how to run our lives and certainly not our businesses. America was founded on personal freedom and liberty (well hey, it used to be anyway) and forcing a business owner to perform a service for an individual, FOR WHATEVER REASON, infringes upon that business owner's liberty and freedom.


I'll ask every black person who has actually gone through this... That's right we did away with this a century and a half ago, therefore it's a moot point.


----------



## PsyOps

baydoll said:


> But you are forgetting Jesus did not STOP there. He also warned people to "unless you repent, you too will all perish."  Luke 13:3



I have stated over and over that this was an opportunity to preach gone wasted.  What does that mean to you... 'preach'?


----------



## Larry Gude

baydoll said:


> Ask someone (preferably a black person) what they think of your statement Merlin. You cannot compare what the blacks have gone through with that of gays, I'm sorry. There is no comparison. With all due respect to whatever injustices gays have suffered - and there has been many  (and my heart goes out to them and I wish it wasn't so,  BELIEVE ME), they can't even be compared to the struggles blacks have endured here in the United States.
> 
> How many gays have been taken from their homelands against their will and forced to work as slaves? How many gays have been considered someone's piece of property? When has it ever been legal to beat, torture or kill them? When have gays been given separate drinking fountains to drink from as well as separate schools, parks, restaurants so on and so forth? When have they ever been denied the rights to vote?
> 
> Being gay isn't race, color, religion, or national origin, it is a behavior. And claiming behavior as a 'protected class' will open doors to places we do not even want to go to. (Where do you draw the line?)
> 
> But hey I agree with the rest of your post though - the government has NO RIGHTS to dictate to us how to run our lives and certainly not our businesses. America was founded on personal freedom and liberty (well hey, it used to be anyway) and forcing a business owner to perform a service for an individual, FOR WHATEVER REASON, infringes upon that business owner's liberty and freedom.



Homosexuality used to be treated as a mental health issue. Gays used to be rounded up, arrested. Barred, banned. To this day, many a self described Christian on this here forum express hatred and contempt for homosexuality and absolutely see it as evil. Not sin. Evil. There have been attempts to us the US Constitution to ban gay marriage. Is that about slavery? No. Is that about civil rights? I don't see how you can describe it otherwise and that was the point of Midnight. 

Christianity has moved away from the teachings of God on slavery. Yes? How come that has changed? What about miscegenation? You speak of freedom. Does that include support for religious freedom? Does that include freedom of association? 

I don't see anything wrong with Christianity being a consistent positive force for good. The problem is the inconsistencies. It's OK, presumably, to bake a cake for a black couple or a mixed race couple. 50 years ago, that baker would have, perhaps, declined on religious grounds. He wouldn't have declined a gay couple because they wouldn't have dared ask.


----------



## Larry Gude

SamSpade said:


> There are people who look at little children or sheep in the same way. KNOWING that doesn't make it more palatable. I accept gayness on the part that it has a biological basis that is approaching ironclad soundness, whereas previously I looked upon it as mental illness brought on by years of influence and bad decisions - much like, say, being grossly overweight.



If you look at sexual desire as a scale, a preference scale, it's pretty easy to see how someone could desire damn near anything including animals and children. There is 'normal' and then there would be, of course, extremes. Someone desired Nancy Pelosi. If you then say "OK, this is inappropriate and unacceptable, sex with children and animals" and do so based on the innocence and helplessness of them or, in Pelosi's case, revulsion, or, say, because of deformity or mental or other health weakness, you've now got rules. If you're defending them on rationale reasons, such as age or innocence or disability, there you go. You've got a sound argument. If you oppose this or that based on faith, on beliefs, you've got a whole other argument going on. When you add in religious freedom, freedom of association, now, there are even more variables based on personal bias and not reason. 

As you've learned to accept, gay people don't become gay based on years of bad influence and bad decisions. Their personal attractions are for the same sex for as long as they can remember. It is one thing to deal with bestiality and pedophilia based on the innocence of children and animals and, therefore arguing that both are wrong and unacceptable. It is a whole other ball of wax to argue against the desires of two consenting adults. You don't have to agree or support it or bake cakes for it. Assuming you think baking a gay cake is saying "With this cake I declare homosexuality to be OK."

Again, I think it is fine for Christianity to oppose this as against THEIR faith and teachings but, when you single it out as a special sin, seek use of the US constitution to limit freedom of association and contract based on your faith, refuse to bake a cake because your faith is simply that flimsy as to be threatened by gay cake baking, you're opening yourself up for reasoned opposition and resistance.


----------



## PsyOps

Larry Gude said:


> Homosexuality used to be treated as a mental health issue. Gays used to be rounded up, arrested. Barred, banned. To this day, many a self described Christian on this here forum express hatred and contempt for homosexuality and absolutely see it as evil. Not sin. Evil. There have been attempts to us the US Constitution to ban gay marriage. Is that about slavery? No. Is that about civil rights? I don't see how you can describe it otherwise and that was the point of Midnight.
> 
> Christianity has moved away from the teachings of God on slavery. Yes? How come that has changed? What about miscegenation? You speak of freedom. Does that include support for religious freedom? Does that include freedom of association?
> 
> I don't see anything wrong with Christianity being a consistent positive force for good. The problem is the inconsistencies. It's OK, presumably, to bake a cake for a black couple or a mixed race couple. 50 years ago, that baker would have, perhaps, declined on religious grounds. He wouldn't have declined a gay couple because they wouldn't have dared ask.



Your point is well-stated from a civil rights standpoint.  But you can’t get away from then biblical standards.  Although there are references in the bible that presume to support slavery; there is nothing that stipulates that not having slaves or having slaves is a sin.  There are specific references in the bible that stipulate homosexuality as a sin.  Whether our society accepts these things socially has nothing to do with what the bible says and the standard that Christians are supposed to follow.


----------



## Larry Gude

PsyOps said:


> Your point is well-stated from a civil rights standpoint.  But you can’t get away from then biblical standards.  Although there are references in the bible that presume to support slavery; there is nothing that stipulates that not having slaves or having slaves is a sin.  There are specific references in the bible that stipulate homosexuality as a sin.  Whether our society accepts these things socially has nothing to do with what the bible says and the standard that Christians are supposed to follow.



Dude! OK, so, you're suggesting that you can stand there at the podium and make a case, running for President of the United States 

"My fellow American's, I am sorry, but, my faith compels me to oppose homosexuality as a sin. I therefore can not condone it or support it and, as your President, for damn sure, won't be baking any cakes for those unrepentant sinners. However, on the other hand, I would like to announce my support for slavery. Now, now, before you get all huffy, first of all, it is NOT a sin. Second, it will go a long ways towards solving the unemployment problem and reducing the pressures supporting illegal immigration. Just so long as we are clear that there will be no gay slaves. Now, I'd also like to announce that I am in favor of babies, moms AND apple pie. And making jazz the national music. I thank you and God bless 'merica!"


----------



## baydoll

Larry Gude said:


> Homosexuality used to be treated as a mental health issue. Gays used to be rounded up, arrested. Barred, banned.. .



Who are these people who banned/barred gays? Who are these people who arrested them? Can you give us an actual case or two?



> To this day, many a self described Christian on this here forum express hatred and contempt for homosexuality and absolutely see it as evil. Not sin. Evil. There have been attempts to us the US Constitution to ban gay marriage. Is that about slavery? No. Is that about civil rights? I don't see how you can describe it otherwise and that was the point of Midnight



And those 'self-described' 'Christians would not be following Christ because Christ commanded His followers to love your neighbor. Neighbors being anyone and everyone. These 'self-described Christians' are obviously disobeying Christ. 

What 'Civil Rights' are gays being denied, Larry? Compared to what blacks were denied in the past?


----------



## baydoll

> Larry: Christianity has moved away from the teachings of God on slavery. Yes? How come that has changed? What about miscegenation? You speak of freedom. Does that include support for religious freedom? Does that include freedom of association?




What 'teachings of God on slavery' would this be? And the same on 'miscegenation'?!  I'm at loss here, Larry....when did God ever promote slavery or install the commandment of Thou Shalt Not Have A Marriage of Two Different Races? 

Freedom of association? What??!!!


----------



## baydoll

Toxick said:


> Individuals "who've made up their minds" - is a more accurate subject of that sentence.



Well Sir, how would one know whose minds are made up? One would have to be a mind reader to know that, would they not? How do you know that somewhere down the road these people will actually want to know about God?


----------



## baydoll

Toxick said:


> Can you be more specific about what you mean by "ignorant of God and His Ways".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it seems like you're comparing "Not Born Again" vs. "Born Again"
> Where I'm talking about "Never heard of God" vs "Have Heard of God".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There may be some kid living who was raised by lemurs or something in the Amazon wilderness who's never heard of God, but I sincerely doubt there's a significant portion of the population who has never been exposed to Christianity.




I agree with b23hqb answer to you on this.


----------



## baydoll

PsyOps said:


> I have stated over and over that this was an opportunity to preach gone wasted.  What does that mean to you... 'preach'?



What does it mean to you?


----------



## baydoll

Merlin99 said:


> I'll ask every black person who has actually gone through this... That's right we did away with this a century and a half ago, therefore it's a moot point.



Exactly.


----------



## baydoll

Larry Gude said:


> I don't see anything wrong with Christianity being a consistent positive force for good. The problem is the inconsistencies. It's OK, presumably, to bake a cake for a black couple or a mixed race couple. 50 years ago, that baker would have, perhaps, declined on religious grounds. He wouldn't have declined a gay couple because they wouldn't have dared ask.



On religious grounds to deny a cake to a black couple? What religion would this be?


----------



## Larry Gude

baydoll said:


> What 'teachings of God on slavery' would this be? And the same on 'miscegenation'?!  I'm at loss here, Larry....when did God ever promote slavery or install the commandment of Thou Shalt Not Have A Marriage of Two Different Races?
> 
> Freedom of association? What??!!!



It is my understanding that the Bible was very accepting of slavery as a simple matter of fact. No? And doesn't like the idea of mixing races?



As for freedom of association, marriage is a contract and seeking to forbid, via the Constitution of all things, gays, adult, consenting gays, from marriage is a prohibition of free association.


----------



## baydoll

Amused_despair said:


> Is there a Muslim bakery in that city?  I am sure it would be the same response. It is a shame that the fundamentalists have taken over Islam.  In the Dark and Middle Ages Islam was more tolerant of other religions than the Christian kingdoms. Jews and Christians could pay a tax and live in peace in Muslim lands.  Jews were tortured, killed, or driven out of Christian lands.  The Christian west has matured and the Islamic east has regressed. The difference is the Christian lands have separated religion and law, while the Islamic countries are combining the two even more.




I disagree with you, Sir. The Quran itself commands Muslims to submit to Allah as well as commands them to subdue people of other religions until they are in a full state of submission to Islamic rule.  And the (very agressive) history of Islam and its brutal methods of conquering other cultures proves this. 

As for Jews being driven out of 'Christian lands' this is precisely what your 'fundamentalists' Muslims are doing right now with Israel. As well as every where else (case in point: Europe).

And those 'Christian' lands were actually Catholic owned. Huge difference there.


----------



## PsyOps

baydoll said:


> What does it mean to you?



First I will tell you what it doesn't mean: Shove God down peoples' throats.  Shutting people out.

What it does mean: Spread the Word.  Spread the Gospel.  Seize opportunities that will allow you to possibly affect change in someone.  Do not just preach to the choir.  It is the sick that need a doctor.


----------



## Toxick

baydoll said:


> One would have to be a mind reader to know that, would they not?






One would not.



One would only need to have a conversation with somebody.


----------



## Toxick

b23hqb said:


> Ignorance does not mean not knowing.




Actually, it does.

The state of not knowing is actually *the definition of* ignorance.





Despite the similarity of terms, ignoring things actually has nothing to do with ignorance.
You're referring to denial, defiance or negligence based on whatever nuance you're looking for.




b23hqb said:


> Jesus would not have baked a cake.





Well, I don't presume to know the mind of Jesus, and who He would or would not bake cakes for. However I tend to disagree. Not because sin should be rewarded, but because by His death and Resurrection sin is *forgiven*.


All of it. 

Even the sins you really, really, really, really hate.




But regardless of exactly who Jesus Baker would and wouldn't sell cakes to, I'm pro-Liberty and pro-Capitalism. Therefore I believe anyone has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. If you don't want to bake a cake for someone because they're gay or black or blonde or Muslim or just because you don't like their face, I think you have the right to let that money walk right out your door and into the pocket of your less bigoted competition.


----------



## PsyOps

baydoll said:


> Well Sir, how would one know whose minds are made up? One would have to be a mind reader to know that, would they not? How do you know that somewhere down the road these people will actually want to know about God?



I'd like to think of it this way... you have a child that is a drug addict.  You spent tons putting him into rehab only to have him come back out and right back into drugs.  Do you give up or do you, as a loving and caring parent keep trying?  

There are no guarantees in life; but you can guarantee if you don't bother to try, it will never happen.


----------



## baydoll

Larry Gude said:


> It is my understanding that the Bible was very accepting of slavery as a simple matter of fact. No? And doesn't like the idea of mixing races?
> 
> 
> 
> As for freedom of association, marriage is a contract and seeking to forbid, via the Constitution of all things, gays, adult, consenting gays, from marriage is a prohibition of free association.



No the Bible never accepted slavery, it condemned the practice of 'man-stealing' which was abhorrent to God. The penalty for such crime in the Mosaic Law was death: 'Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death' (Exodus 21:16). 

There were many cases OF slavery in the bible but God never said He approved of such practices. He did give instruction of how they were to be treated (fairly and with kindness). 

The ONLY place in the Bible that condemned the mixing of races was in the Old Testament when God commanded the Jewish people not to mix with those (Gentiles) around them. It had nothing to do with race, it was religious. God didn't want the Jews to intermingle with those who were idolaters and worshippers of false gods. Only if that Gentile person turned away from those things and converted into the Jewish nation were they allowed to marry. It had nothing to do with skin color. 

There were a number of mixed marriages throughout the Bible: Moses married two 'dark skinned' women:  a Midianite named Zipporah (Exodus 2:21-22) then later on married Cus hite woman which his brother Aaron and sister Miriam criticized him for doing.  God wasn't too happy about this and He ended up severely punishing Aaron and Miriam for their racist slight.

 Then there was Joseph who married an Egyptian woman.. Joseph's brother Judah married his Canaanite daughter-in-law Tamar (interesting story, that!) to which they had a son named Perez. In the book of Ruth (a decendant of Perez), Ruth's two sons both married Moabitess women. Rahab the famous Canaanite prostitute who protected the spies before the Israelites conquered Jericho went on to marry a prominent Israelite named Salmon, and they had a son named Boaz.  Boaz married the previous mentioned heroine of the Book of Ruth Ruth the Moabitess.

I could go on and on but I would probably bore you to death, lol!

As for freedom of association, I don't follow man's law, I follow God's.


----------



## baydoll

PsyOps said:


> First I will tell you what it doesn't mean: Shove God down peoples' throats.  Shutting people out.
> 
> What it does mean: Spread the Word.  Spread the Gospel.  Seize opportunities that will allow you to possibly affect change in someone.  Do not just preach to the choir.  It is the sick that need a doctor.



Well I agree totally with you on the first point. 

But your second statement : 'spreading the Word, spread the Gospel and so on' how does one do that, exactly? And what is the Word/Gospel?


----------



## baydoll

Toxick said:


> One would not.
> 
> 
> 
> One would only need to have a conversation with somebody.



So one could read ones mind if they have a conversation with that person? 

Okay....


----------



## baydoll

PsyOps said:


> I'd like to think of it this way... you have a child that is a drug addict.  You spent tons putting him into rehab only to have him come back out and right back into drugs.  Do you give up or do you, as a loving and caring parent keep trying?
> 
> There are no guarantees in life; but you can guarantee if you don't bother to try, it will never happen.



Well I totally agree with that but I'm not sure what that has to do with what we're talking about...

Not to sound redundant but just in case you missed it I have a gay son. I have never stopped loving him; I have not disowned him or his friends,  we have a wonderfully warm, loving, close relationship. Our lives are pretty much the same as it was before he 'came out of the closet'. I don't preach to him and his friends, my son knows God and knows what His Word says about homosexuality, so there is no need for me to keep pressing that point (I'm not one to shove my faith down people's throat  ) . BUT (and I've said this before) if there ever came a time when my son and his SO came to me and said Mom we are getting married and we like you to come I would tell him No. And I would tell him WHY I said No: I cannot as a follower of Christ participate in something that He condemned. Simple as that. 

Pretty much my point in regards to what that baker did.


----------



## baydoll

> Originally Posted by Larry Gude View Post
> 
> It is my understanding that the Bible was very accepting of slavery as a simple matter of fact. No? And doesn't like the idea of mixing races?
> 
> 
> 
> As for freedom of association, marriage is a contract and seeking to forbid, via the Constitution of all things, gays, adult, consenting gays, from marriage is a prohibition of free association.



Would that include ALL marriages? If that's the case, where does one draw the line?

Quite a slippery slope, that.


----------



## PsyOps

baydoll said:


> Well I totally agree with that but I'm not sure what that has to do with what we're talking about...
> 
> Not to sound redundant but just in case you missed it I have a gay son. I have never stopped loving him; I have not disowned him or his friends,  we have a wonderfully warm, loving, close relationship. Our lives are pretty much the same as it was before he 'came out of the closet'. I don't preach to him and his friends, my son knows God and knows what His Word says about homosexuality, so there is no need for me to keep pressing that point (I'm not one to shove my faith down people's throat  ) . BUT (and I've said this before) if there ever came a time when my son and his SO came to me and said Mom we are getting married and we like you to come I would tell him No. And I would tell him WHY I said No: I cannot as a follower of Christ participate in something that He condemned. Simple as that.
> 
> Pretty much my point in regards to what that baker did.



When you have the opportunity to solve a problem you can either ignore it or you can try to solve it.  Doing nothing will rarely result in it just going away.  But I want to make it clear that people do what they are compelled to do.  The baker seemed compelled to express their faith (not bake the gay couple a cake) and rather than using that as an opportunity to ‘solve a problem’, they were compelled to express their faith by casting judgment and shutting people out; by essentially telling the gay couple ‘your sins are too unacceptable for me to serve you’.

I think everyone has someone in their family that is gay.  I have a cousin and nephew.  Like you, I love them dearly.  I think it’s safe to say that even if your own child commits murder you wouldn’t stop loving them.  THAT’S the difference between loving the person and hating the sin.  Just like you, I’m not compelled to preach to them about their lifestyle.  But the baker decided to act on his/her faith; send a message.  In my opinion, if you’re going to take a ‘vocal’ position on someone’s behavior (sin) it should be done in a teachable manner not in a manner that shuts people out.


----------



## Radiant1

baydoll said:


> BUT (and I've said this before) if there ever came a time when my son and his SO came to me and said Mom we are getting married and we like you to come I would tell him No. And I would tell him WHY I said No: I cannot as a follower of Christ participate in something that He condemned. Simple as that.



I don't really want to pry too much, but I have a question because this confuses me a bit.

Do you think your son and his SO are having sexual relations?

If the answer to the question above is yes, then are you not already "participating" in their sin by going shopping with them, dining with them, etc? I ask because I'm not sure why you are differentiating an actual marriage as what you can't "participate" in, or why that's where you draw your line.


----------



## PsyOps

baydoll said:


> BUT (and I've said this before) if there ever came a time when my son and his SO came to me and said Mom we are getting married and we like you to come I would tell him No. And I would tell him WHY I said No: I cannot as a follower of Christ participate in something that He condemned. Simple as that.
> 
> Pretty much my point in regards to what that baker did.



I would have to side with Radiant that God did not forbid gay marriage, he forbade homosexuality.  Jesus went into the house of a tax collector:



> While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples.  When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
> 
> On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.  But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’  For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” - Matthew 9:10_13



Associating with ‘sinners’ is not the problem; it’s what you do with that time.  We do this every day with all sorts of people.  You work with people that are probably atheists, adulterers, gay, etc… Do you refuse to work with them, serve them, help them…?  I work for and with people that have all sorts of lifestyles and habits that I adamantly disagree with, but I will do everything I can to make my working environment one that conveys the message that I care.  Associating with or serving someone is not condoning their behavior.  As Radiant asked, where do you draw the line?


----------



## hotcoffee

PsyOps said:


> I would have to side with Radiant that God did not forbid gay marriage, he forbade homosexuality.  Jesus went into the house of a tax collector:
> 
> 
> 
> Associating with ‘sinners’ is not the problem; it’s what you do with that time.  We do this every day with all sorts of people.  You work with people that are probably atheists, adulterers, gay, etc… Do you refuse to work with them, serve them, help them…?  I work for and with people that have all sorts of lifestyles and habits that I adamantly disagree with, but I will do everything I can to make my working environment one that conveys the message that I care.  Associating with or serving someone is not condoning their behavior.  As Radiant asked, where do you draw the line?



We draw the line when the church becomes complacent.  Alcoholics go to church reverently even after they slip up.  Greedy people run the church in some cases.  People who profane and gossip go to church.  If the church leads the way to Jesus the Lord.... then that's where they should be.


----------



## Radiant1

hotcoffee said:


> We draw the line when the church becomes complacent.  Alcoholics go to church reverently even after they slip up.  Greedy people run the church in some cases.  People who profane and gossip go to church.  If the church leads the way to Jesus the Lord.... then that's where they should be.



Homosexuals and adulterers go to church too, and nobody is forcing your church to marry homosexuals, so again, I don't understand why this is where you draw your line.


----------



## Larry Gude

baydoll said:


> As for freedom of association, I don't follow man's law, I follow God's.



And, again, this boils it all down to the question of religious freedom; are you for it? 

I get the argument that the difference between a sin where the sinner is trying to cut it out and one who is not but, again, if a homosexual is not of your faith and isn't claiming to be how do you propose to live in peace with anyone if you still want them to behave as a devout member of your faith? A gay person coming to me to bake them a cake for their union, two consenting adults, are not asking me to join their faith nor give up mine. They, as a neighbor, are saying "Hey, neighbor, I see you bake cakes. We would like one for a celebration."

If I say "Sorry. I don't think you should be doing that and can not, in good conscience, bake you a cake. It will threaten my faith" how am I not being a poor neighbor and creating division and friction where there, easily, could be none?


----------



## PsyOps

hotcoffee said:


> We draw the line when the church becomes complacent.  Alcoholics go to church reverently even after they slip up.  Greedy people run the church in some cases.  People who profane and gossip go to church.  If the church leads the way to Jesus the Lord.... then that's where they should be.


----------



## Makavide

Larry Gude said:


> And, again, this boils it all down to the question of religious freedom; are you for it?
> 
> I get the argument that the difference between a sin where the sinner is trying to cut it out and one who is not but, again, if a homosexual is not of your faith and isn't claiming to be how do you propose to live in peace with anyone if you still want them to behave as a devout member of your faith? A gay person coming to me to bake them a cake for their union, two consenting adults, are not asking me to join their faith nor give up mine. They, as a neighbor, are saying "Hey, neighbor, I see you bake cakes. We would like one for a celebration."
> 
> If I say "Sorry. I don't think you should be doing that and can not, in good conscience, bake you a cake. It will threaten my faith" how am I not being a poor neighbor and creating division and friction where there, easily, could be none?



Taking the legality out of the situation and going strictly on the beliefs and tenants of one's faith. What should happen here:  "There is a gun shop owner who believes murder is a sin.  That gun shop owner sells guns and ammunition for hunting and self protection. However, someone with out the same belief system, as the gun shop owner, on murder enters the shop and asks to buy a gun, explaining it was to kill his neighbor."  What should the gun shop owner do?


----------



## Larry Gude

Makavide said:


> Taking the legality out of the situation and going strictly on the beliefs and tenants of one's faith. What should happen here:  "There is a gun shop owner who believes murder is a sin.  That gun shop owner sells guns and ammunition for hunting and self protection. However, someone with out the same belief system, as the gun shop owner, on murder enters the shop and asks to buy a gun, explaining it was to kill his neighbor."  What should the gun shop owner do?



I agree with the Dixie Chick Principle; you should be able to speak your mind. Just don't be surprised if others do, too. 

I agree with the principle that I should not have to sell a cake to homosexuals for their wedding if I don't want to. I also agree that folks then have the right to look at me like a loon. Me, personally, that's all this is; this cake guy is not very strong in his faith nor his interest in getting along with his community. So, reap what you sow. It is defensible that he acted in any sort of Christian way as I understand it and I think he harms the faith and, again, that is my problem with all of this. The world will not be a better place when people like this discredit Christianity down to cult status. He's a guy who may know the music but he sure doesn't know the song, in my view.


----------



## hotcoffee

Check out Revelation 11.  Things are getting way out of sync here.  

All this discussion about having gays in the church is really taking the discussion away from the gospel.  

Jesus didn't talk about homosexuality.  I'm sure He knew it was referenced in Leviticus 20:13, but He never made a reference to it that I can find.  

"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJ, Leviticus 20:13)"​
So are we supposed to expose sin?

Certainly the Biblical teaching never intends the Christian to be purposefully nasty and hurtful to anyone. We are to warn the world, however, of encroaching dangers and pitfalls. We have the spiritual eyes to see them coming, and we are to warn those that cannot see or understand them. Yes, the guilty person or persons may scream bloody murder when their violation of God’s principles has been exposed, but it still is our obligation to help them, and it is not necessarily “hateful” or “unloving” of us to help them. It certainly is not “pushing it down their throat” when we show them what God’s Word says.​
Things are apparently going to get a whole lot worse.... Revelation 11 says Jerusalem will be called Sodom.  

On a side note.... I found this article on Sodomy laws....  Note.... the origin of the word Sodomy is Sodom.... interesting?


----------



## Larry Gude

hotcoffee said:


> "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJ, Leviticus 20:13)"​
> So are we supposed to expose sin?
> 
> Certainly the Biblical teaching never intends the Christian to be purposefully nasty and hurtful to anyone.  :​





The way I read it, they are supposed to be put to death and it will be their own fault.​


----------



## PsyOps

Larry Gude said:


> The way I read it, they are supposed to be put to death and it will be their own fault.



Then under the same laws, an adulterer should have been put to death; but Jesus chose to admonish those that wanted to put her to death, forgave her and told her to sin no more.  What do we take away from this?  The sin is still a sin, but we are to forgive and ADVISE people to sin no more.  Judgment was to be left up to God.


----------



## Larry Gude

PsyOps said:


> Then under the same laws, an adulterer should have been put to death; but Jesus chose to admonish those that wanted to put her to death, forgave her and told her to sin no more.  What do we take away from this?  The sin is still a sin, but we are to forgive and ADVISE people to sin no more.  Judgment was to be left up to God.



What I don't take from this is "No cake for you!"


----------



## PsyOps

Larry Gude said:


> What I don't take from this is "No cake for you!"



For far too long in my life I have watched all too many Christians shut people out.  I told this story some time ago… when I was stationed in FL there was a church near my house.  It was a very proper church; people dressed in suits and fine dresses.  One day a homeless man showed up.   Rumor was he was an alcoholic.  He sat in the back of the church.  When some of the ‘elders’ were told he was there they went back and escorted him out telling him drunks and people that dressed that way weren’t welcome there.  It was my assumption the guy was looking for a way out of his plight and church was the place for him to go.  They found his body later in the woods; an apparent suicide.

The guy didn’t fit their narrow thinking of who belongs in God’s house.  I get that a bakery isn’t a church, but the owners turned it into one by preaching their rejection of people they disagree with.  Jesus forgave EVERYONE, not just those who fit a narrow image of who belongs and who doesn’t.  Something as simple as refusing to bake a cake sends a loud message that some people don’t belong.  Those that don’t belong gets decided in the end when God makes the final decision.  Until then, do we continue to put to death the adulterer and homosexuals or do we offer them what Jesus offered the adulterer and those that put Him to death?   Do we bake that cake?  If they reject the message, let God decide.


----------



## RPMDAD

PsyOps said:


> For far too long in my life I have watched all too many Christians shut people out.  I told this story some time ago… when I was stationed in FL there was a church near my house.  It was a very proper church; people dressed in suits and fine dresses.  One day a homeless man showed up.   Rumor was he was an alcoholic.  He sat in the back of the church.  When some of the ‘elders’ were told he was there they went back and escorted him out telling him drunks and people that dressed that way weren’t welcome there.  It was my assumption the guy was looking for a way out of his plight and church was the place for him to go.  They found his body later in the woods; an apparent suicide.
> 
> The guy didn’t fit their narrow thinking of who belongs in God’s house.  I get that a bakery isn’t a church, but the owners turned it into one by preaching their rejection of people they disagree with.  Jesus forgave EVERYONE, not just those who fit a narrow image of who belongs and who doesn’t.  Something as simple as refusing to bake a cake sends a loud message that some people don’t belong.  Those that don’t belong gets decided in the end when God makes the final decision.  Until then, do we continue to put to death the adulterer and homosexuals or do we offer them what Jesus offered the adulterer and those that put Him to death?   Do we bake that cake?  If they reject the message, let God decide.



Good Post Psy.   IMHO, the people at the church and elders were totally wrong, turning him away, as long as he was not causing any disruptions to the service.


----------



## hotcoffee

Christy said:


> I'm not even sure why I am bringing this up, because I already know how this discussion will go (not well).  But it has always befuddled me as to how much anger homosexuality brings out in so many Christians.  Take this article for instance.  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/9/transgendered-priest-give-sermon-washington-nation/
> 
> You've got a transgendered Episcopal Priest giving a sermon at the National Cathedral. The comments at the end are just insane.  Talk about some hate being leveled at other human beings by the religion that is supposed to be all about "love thy neighbor" and whatnot.
> 
> Sure it's a sin, you can't say (in accordance with the bible) that it isn't, however, so is coveting and adultery.  Not keeping the sabbath day holy is also a big no no.   So all you football fans are sinning like nobodies business (just sayin).  :shrug:
> 
> I just don't get why being a homo is so much worse than any of the other sins within the Bible.  Hell, being queer didn't even make the Top Ten (as in commandments).
> 
> What's with all the hate?  Please discuss.



I feel like I'm in that geico advertisement.... that's not how this works... that's not how any of this works. 

This whole thread is off kilter.  The original question had nothing to do with a gay couple or a cake.  It had to do with a transgender priest and the LGBT acceptance in the church.


----------



## Hank

hotcoffee said:


> I feel like I'm in that geico advertisement.... that's not how this works... that's not how any of this works.
> 
> This whole thread is off kilter.  The original question had nothing to do with a gay couple or a cake.  It had to do with a transgender priest and the LGBT acceptance in the church.



Weird that a thread would go off track.


----------



## Toxick

baydoll said:


> So one could read ones mind if they have a conversation with that person?



One could


- if one puts words in my ####ing mouth, or infers things that I didn't say.


----------



## Gilligan

Hank said:


> Weird that a thread would go off track.


----------



## b23hqb

Hank said:


> Weird that a thread would go off track.



Is this the first time that has happened?


----------



## baydoll

Larry Gude said:


> And, again, this boils it all down to the question of religious freedom; are you for it?
> 
> I get the argument that the difference between a sin where the sinner is trying to cut it out and one who is not but, again, if a homosexual is not of your faith and isn't claiming to be how do you propose to live in peace with anyone if you still want them to behave as a devout member of your faith? A gay person coming to me to bake them a cake for their union, two consenting adults, are not asking me to join their faith nor give up mine. They, as a neighbor, are saying "Hey, neighbor, I see you bake cakes. We would like one for a celebration."
> 
> If I say "Sorry. I don't think you should be doing that and can not, in good conscience, bake you a cake. It will threaten my faith" how am I not being a poor neighbor and creating division and friction where there, easily, could be none?



When a Christian is asked to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple it gives them a message that God is okay with two people of the same sex is marrying. This is what I was trying to convey to you in my previous post. When it comes down to it I have a choice: either I obey man or obey God. God says marriage is between a man and a woman. Throughout the Bible God says homosexuality is a big No No. So if I were to bake a WEDDING CAKE for a gay couple I would be disobeying God. Baking them a WEDDING CAKE for their marriage is giving them a message that God is okay with their 'marriage'.  If I were asked to bake a REGULAR CAKE for say a birthday party for a gay man I would absolutely have no problems doing so. 

I have no problems with people who believe other than me, that is their rights and their freedom of religious beliefs.  BUT it works both ways... I should also as a Christian have the rights and freedom to my beliefs as well. 

IN this case the Christian baker's rights were trampled on.


----------



## baydoll

Larry Gude said:


> The way I read it, they are supposed to be put to death and it will be their own fault.



That's the Old Testament. Christians are not under the law but under grace. 

http://carm.org/why-do-christians-not-obey-old-testaments-commands-to-kill-homosexuals


----------



## baydoll

Radiant1 said:


> I don't really want to pry too much, but I have a question because this confuses me a bit.
> 
> Do you think your son and his SO are having sexual relations?
> 
> If the answer to the question above is yes, then are you not already "participating" in their sin by going shopping with them, dining with them, etc? I ask because I'm not sure why you are differentiating an actual marriage as what you can't "participate" in, or why that's where you draw your line.



They're both adults, Radiant. It would be the same if I had an adult daughter who was single and she was having sex with her boyfriend. I wouldn't disown her, I would tell her what God says about her behavior but I would still do things with her. Now if she were to go after a married man and break up his marriage and then THEY got married I wouldn't attend their wedding either.


----------



## Larry Gude

baydoll said:


> When a Christian is asked to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple it gives them a message that God is okay with two people of the same sex is marrying. This is what I was trying to convey to you in my previous post. When it comes down to it I have a choice: either I obey man or obey God. God says marriage is between a man and a woman. Throughout the Bible God says homosexuality is a big No No. So if I were to bake a WEDDING CAKE for a gay couple I would be disobeying God. Baking them a WEDDING CAKE for their marriage is giving them a message that God is okay with their 'marriage'.  If I were asked to bake a REGULAR CAKE for say a birthday party for a gay man I would absolutely have no problems doing so.
> 
> I have no problems with people who believe other than me, that is their rights and their freedom of religious beliefs.  BUT it works both ways... I should also as a Christian have the rights and freedom to my beliefs as well.
> 
> IN this case the Christian baker's rights were trampled on.



We'd be on the exact same page if we were talking about a minister being forced to officiate or a baker being forced to show up and be part of the ceremony or being forced to hold the reception at his house or bakery. We are not on the same page because, in my view, the baking of a cake is just a baking of a cake. It confers no acquiescence or agreement or blessing of the consumer(s) of it anymore than if he were a plumber cleaning their toilet or the gas station selling them gas or the lawn guy mowing their grass or the tax guy doing their books or a doctor trying to heal them.

This baker dude has issues and his issues make a mockery, in my view, of his faith. I'm a sinner, big time but, it's my faith, too. 

Now, if you'd like to defend plumbers and lawn guys and doctors and gas stations and so forth all rejecting them on proper and good Biblical grounds, please, go ahead. However, you can't while retaining much in the way of credibility for the faith. This guy has brought shame to the faith by taking such an absurd position and, in the process, is helping the argument of those who may seek to force a church or a minister or a witness to a wedding to be part of something they object to.


----------



## baydoll

PsyOps said:


> When you have the opportunity to solve a problem you can either ignore it or you can try to solve it.  Doing nothing will rarely result in it just going away.  But I want to make it clear that people do what they are compelled to do.  The baker seemed compelled to express their faith (not bake the gay couple a cake) and rather than using that as an opportunity to ‘solve a problem’, they were compelled to express their faith by casting judgment and shutting people out; by essentially telling the gay couple ‘your sins are too unacceptable for me to serve you’.
> 
> I think everyone has someone in their family that is gay.  I have a cousin and nephew.  Like you, I love them dearly.  I think it’s safe to say that even if your own child commits murder you wouldn’t stop loving them.  THAT’S the difference between loving the person and hating the sin.  Just like you, I’m not compelled to preach to them about their lifestyle.  But the baker decided to act on his/her faith; send a message.  In my opinion, if you’re going to take a ‘vocal’ position on someone’s behavior (sin) it should be done in a teachable manner not in a manner that shuts people out.



And by baking them a wedding cake you are teaching them what, PsyOps?


----------



## baydoll

Larry Gude said:


> We'd be on the exact same page if we were talking about a minister being forced to officiate or a baker being forced to show up and be part of the ceremony or being forced to hold the reception at his house or bakery. We are not on the same page because, in my view, the baking of a cake is just a baking of a cake. It confers no acquiescence or agreement or blessing of the consumer(s) of it anymore than if he were a plumber cleaning their toilet or the gas station selling them gas or the lawn guy mowing their grass or the tax guy doing their books or a doctor trying to heal them.
> 
> This baker dude has issues and his issues make a mockery, in my view, of his faith. I'm a sinner, big time but, it's my faith, too.
> 
> Now, if you'd like to defend plumbers and lawn guys and doctors and gas stations and so forth all rejecting them on proper and good Biblical grounds, please, go ahead. However, you can't while retaining much in the way of credibility for the faith. This guy has brought shame to the faith by taking such an absurd position and, in the process, is helping the argument of those who may seek to force a church or a minister or a witness to a wedding to be part of something they object to.



What is 'faith', Larry? And what is your faith in? How much do you know God?


----------



## kwillia

baydoll said:


> When a Christian is asked to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple it gives them a message that God is okay with two people of the same sex is marrying. This is what I was trying to convey to you in my previous post. When it comes down to it I have a choice: either I obey man or obey God. God says marriage is between a man and a woman. Throughout the Bible God says homosexuality is a big No No. So if I were to bake a WEDDING CAKE for a gay couple I would be disobeying God. Baking them a WEDDING CAKE for their marriage is giving them a message that God is okay with their 'marriage'.  If I were asked to bake a REGULAR CAKE for say a birthday party for a gay man I would absolutely have no problems doing so.


I don't see it that way. You would be simply providing them a cake and chosing to provide one or not provide one would have no impact on the outcome on the two deciding to join in marriage. They can get married without a cake. Besides, it's not your place to play God. Give them a cake and if God is truly unhappy with their union the cake will fall over at the reception.


----------



## baydoll

PsyOps said:


> For far too long in my life I have watched all too many Christians shut people out.  I told this story some time ago… when I was stationed in FL there was a church near my house.  It was a very proper church; people dressed in suits and fine dresses.  One day a homeless man showed up.   Rumor was he was an alcoholic.  He sat in the back of the church.  When some of the ‘elders’ were told he was there they went back and escorted him out telling him drunks and people that dressed that way weren’t welcome there.  It was my assumption the guy was looking for a way out of his plight and church was the place for him to go.  They found his body later in the woods; an apparent suicide.
> 
> The guy didn’t fit their narrow thinking of who belongs in God’s house.  I get that a bakery isn’t a church, but the owners turned it into one by preaching their rejection of people they disagree with.  Jesus forgave EVERYONE, not just those who fit a narrow image of who belongs and who doesn’t.  Something as simple as refusing to bake a cake sends a loud message that some people don’t belong.  Those that don’t belong gets decided in the end when God makes the final decision.  Until then, do we continue to put to death the adulterer and homosexuals or do we offer them what Jesus offered the adulterer and those that put Him to death?   Do we bake that cake?  If they reject the message, let God decide.



No it doesn't. It sends them a message that God is not okay with them getting married, that's all. 

Good grief talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.


----------



## baydoll

kwillia said:


> I don't see it that way. You would be simply providing them a cake and chosing to provide one or not provide one would have no impact on the outcome on the two deciding to join in marriage. They can get married without a cake. Besides, it's not your place to play God. Give them a cake and if God is truly unhappy with their union the cake will fall over at the reception.



But it's okay for you to play God?


----------



## kwillia

baydoll said:


> But it's okay for you to play God?


Explain yourself. Your comment makes no sense.


----------



## Larry Gude

baydoll said:


> What is 'faith', Larry? And what is your faith in? How much do you know God?



Faith is whatever it means to you. I am an American first, Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are my bibles. They, and they alone, the principles of individual rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are the ONLY things standing between you and I and a hostile world. They codify our rights to believe as we see fit, think as we see fit, worship and speak as we see fit, right up to harming one another. Absent the United States of America, Christianity is in a tough spot world wide. 

Whatever I know or don't know of God, follows my belief in those words. Now, I do firmly believe we are, basically, a Christian nation and that Christ played a large role in the nations birth. That's why I liked your other post so much; you are sincere and represent the best of the faith, in my view.


----------



## Beta

baydoll said:


> But it's okay for you to play God?



It sounds like you trying to teach homosexuals that their lifestyle is wrong, you're trying to play Jesus.  Isn't that the same thing?


----------



## PsyOps

baydoll said:


> And by baking them a wedding cake you are teaching them what, PsyOps?



When Jesus fed the 5000, did he just feed them?  He also healed and had compassion on them.  I wonder what sort of people he healed.  I wonder if he made sure first that none of them were gay or adulterers, or murderers, or any other kind of sin before healing and feeding them?  I don't get the impression he did.

Baking the cake also sends the message that we are here to serve, not judge.


----------



## b23hqb

baydoll said:


> That's the Old Testament. Christians are not under the law but under grace.
> 
> http://carm.org/why-do-christians-not-obey-old-testaments-commands-to-kill-homosexuals



Yup. CARM is on my list of favorites and has been for years. Their logic and facts are really unarguable against. Love the sinner (but not approve of, condone, or promote said sin), but hate the sin. Christians follow the grace that put down the law.


----------



## PsyOps

baydoll said:


> No it doesn't. It sends them a message that God is not okay with them getting married, that's all.
> 
> Good grief talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.



I don't see expounding on the discussion making a mountain out of a molehill.  I mean if you want to use that logic, the baker did just that.  

God isn't okay with a lot of things we do.  Along those lines I think God isn't okay with people that curse, drink excessively, speed, abuse their wives and kids, have abortions, etc... Should the baker also refuse those people too?  I mean we can make the list of acceptable people really, really small with that standard.


----------



## Radiant1

PsyOps said:


> God isn't okay with a lot of things we do.  Along those lines I think God isn't okay with people that curse, drink excessively, speed, abuse their wives and kids, have abortions, etc... Should the baker also refuse those people too?  I mean we can make the list of acceptable people really, really small with that standard.



Exactly why I asked the question of baydoll. Is a sin a sin or not? Is gay marriage somehow more sinful than adultery or beating your wife or blasphemy, etc?



baydoll said:


> They're both adults, Radiant. It would be the same if I had an adult daughter who was single and she was having sex with her boyfriend. I wouldn't disown her, I would tell her what God says about her behavior but I would still do things with her. Now if she were to go after a married man and break up his marriage and then THEY got married I wouldn't attend their wedding either.



Ok, but that doesn't answer my question. Why do you draw the line at marriage and not, say, adultery?


----------



## Amused_despair

because gay sex is 'ewwwwwww"  but we aren't allowed to discriminate because of ickiness, so it is labeled under religion and then it is ok.  The Bible forbids many things, from making oaths to judging people, but gays are the ones who get focused on while the other transgressions against the Good Book get looked over.  It is the "icky" factor.


----------



## CleanTheSlateInSMC

Amused_despair said:


> because gay sex is 'ewwwwwww"  but we aren't allowed to discriminate because of ickiness, so it is labeled under religion and then it is ok.  The Bible forbids many things, from making oaths to judging people, but gays are the ones who get focused on while the other transgressions against the Good Book get looked over.  It is the "icky" factor.



Yeah! What about all those ham sandwich eaters (Leviticus 11:7-8), tattooed people (Leviticus 19:28), and women who dare speak in church (Corinthians 14:34-35)? Let's not single out gay people for eternal damnation!


----------



## Chris0nllyn

b23hqb said:


> Yup. CARM is on my list of favorites and has been for years. Their logic and facts are really unarguable against. Love the sinner (but not approve of, condone, or promote said sin), but hate the sin. Christians follow the grace that put down the law.



No offense, but citing "facts" and "logic" in a thread about religion is funny to me.

The burden of proof lies with the believers, and nothing in that article does that except for citing passages of a book written thousands of years ago, and re-written over and over again.




On another note, what if all you super-religious folks are wrong? What if there is no afterlife, and you just, die? Do you honestly believe that your short and valuable time on this earth is better spent telling others that their actions are sins and following god's plan, or would it be better spent living your own life to it's fullest? Sure, some of you may actually believe that it's your calling to do what you do, but what if it's all for nothing?


----------



## CleanTheSlateInSMC

Chris0nllyn said:


> No offense, but citing "facts" and "logic" in a thread about religion is funny to me.
> 
> The burden of proof lies with the believers, and nothing in that article does that except for citing passages of a book written thousands of years ago, and re-written over and over again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On another note, what if all you super-religious folks are wrong? What if there is no afterlife, and you just, die? Do you honestly believe that your short and valuable time on this earth is better spent telling others that their actions are sins and following god's plan, or would it be better spent living your own life to it's fullest? Sure, some of you may actually believe that it's your calling to do what you do, but what if it's all for nothing?



I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

CleanTheSlateInSMC said:


> I couldn't agree more.



I should have added that I don't have a problem with anyone who believes in any particular religion, just a question.


----------



## b23hqb

Chris0nllyn said:


> No offense, but citing "facts" and "logic" in a thread about religion is funny to me.
> 
> The burden of proof lies with the believers, and nothing in that article does that except for citing passages of a book written thousands of years ago, and re-written over and over again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On another note, what if all you super-religious folks are wrong? What if there is no afterlife, and you just, die? Do you honestly believe that your short and valuable time on this earth is better spent telling others that their actions are sins and following god's plan, or would it be better spent living your own life to it's fullest? Sure, some of you may actually believe that it's your calling to do what you do, but what if it's all for nothing?



I, we, are living our lives to the fullest extent in moral, healthy, clean, as pure as we can make them. Debauchery, lust, lascivious living, spur of the moment actions just because it feels good, doesn't matter who it hurts as long as one is happy and satisfied, are not on my list of a "full" life.

But, what if we are wrong? What have we lost? Nothing but a good, clean life.

But if we are right, all non-believers are doomed for eternity in a living state of hell, even worse than dictionary definitions can spell out.

Everyone has a choice. Even the homosexual communi-tuh!


----------



## Radiant1

Chris0nllyn said:


> No offense, but citing "facts" and "logic" in a thread about religion is funny to me.



I don't find CARM particularly logical, but think of it as logic "within the parameters of the Christian faith".


----------



## Chris0nllyn

b23hqb said:


> I, we, are living our lives to the fullest extent in moral, healthy, clean, as pure as we can make them. Debauchery, lust, lascivious living, spur of the moment actions just because it feels good, doesn't matter who it hurts as long as one is happy and satisfied, are not on my list of a "full" life.
> 
> But, what if we are wrong? What have we lost? Nothing but a good, clean life.
> 
> But if we are right, all non-believers are doomed for eternity in a living state of hell, even worse than dictionary definitions can spell out.
> 
> Everyone has a choice. Even the homosexual communi-tuh!



And that's fine, but you've said you were born again, no? Maybe something similar I don't remember.

So, what about your "old" life did you enjoy? Obviously uyour faith has made you change that (not saying it's a bad thing), but some people do enjoy debauchery, lust, lascivious living, and spur of the moment actions that feel good.  Including gays. Which brings us back 39 pages to the original question as to why they get the most crap for it. Out of alllllll the other sins laid out by your god, why them? Why the need to tell them they are going to hell if it really doesn;t matter to you, as you've said?

Maybe some folks don't believe in god, and choose to live the life they want. It's what we all want in a free country.

You may have lost out on a good friend or connections with genuinely good people you may not have met in church groups because their life didn't mesh with your views. 

You are correct though, _if_ you are correct, us sinners are f'ed. BUT, who's to say Christianity is the _right_ religion? what if Buddhism is right? Islam? Satanism? 

Then what?


----------



## ProximaCentauri

b23hqb said:


> I, we, are living our lives to the fullest extent in moral, healthy, clean, as pure as we can make them. Debauchery, lust, lascivious living, spur of the moment actions just because it feels good, doesn't matter who it hurts as long as one is happy and satisfied, are not on my list of a "full" life.
> 
> But, what if we are wrong? What have we lost? Nothing but a good, clean life.
> 
> But if we are right, all non-believers are doomed for eternity in a living state of hell, even worse than dictionary definitions can spell out.
> 
> Everyone has a choice. Even the homosexual communi-tuh!



Yes, everyone has a choice to accept Christ (even Homosexuals) or suffer eternal conscious torment in fire. Is that really a choice? This is similar to the "choice" that North Korean's have when voting in their national elections. Yes, technically they can abstain or even write in a candidate, instead of checking the box for Kim Jong Un. 

If they are brave enough to reject Kim Jong, their punishment is death or a short hellish life in a concentration camp- BUT this still pales in comparison to Jesus's punishment of ETERNAL torture if you choose to reject him. So Jesus wins easily against Kim Jong Un in a contest for the most torturous, heinous figure in the known universe! But hey, Jesus loves you....don't you just feel his love?


----------



## baydoll

b23hqb said:


> Yup. CARM is on my list of favorites and has been for years. Their logic and facts are really unarguable against. Love the sinner (but not approve of, condone, or promote said sin), but hate the sin. Christians follow the grace that put down the law.



Thanks for that, b23hqb. It's good to see another brother (sister?) that share the same beliefs.  

Looks like we're getting to be a rare breed.


----------



## baydoll

PsyOps said:


> I don't see expounding on the discussion making a mountain out of a molehill.  I mean if you want to use that logic, the baker did just that.
> 
> God isn't okay with a lot of things we do.  Along those lines I think God isn't okay with people that curse, drink excessively, speed, abuse their wives and kids, have abortions, etc... Should the baker also refuse those people too?  I mean we can make the list of acceptable people really, really small with that standard.



We're talking about someone making a cake that celebrates a gay wedding, not celebrates cursing, drinking excessively, speeding, abusing wives and kids and having abortions. Apples and oranges and all that.

I believe homosexual activity is a sin and marriage is God ordained as being between a man and woman. A gay wedding would be a celebration of something God explicitly codemned.  Yes Jesus ate with tax collectors, but I don't think he would have gone to a celebration of how much money tax collectors extorts from people. Jesus would treat gay couples with love, respect, compassion and he would eat meals with them AS WELL AS tell them the truth about their sins. He would have NOT been silent and let them remain in their sins.


----------



## baydoll

Radiant1 said:


> Exactly why I asked the question of baydoll. Is a sin a sin or not? Is gay marriage somehow more sinful than adultery or beating your wife or blasphemy, etc?
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, but that doesn't answer my question. Why do you draw the line at marriage and not, say, adultery?



Is gay marriage somehow more sinful than adultery or beating your wife or blasphemy, etc? Absolutely not. 

I wouldn't attend a wedding ceremony if the groom was cheating on his fiance, or beating her up either. 

Blasphemy? What does that have to do with marriage?


----------



## baydoll

> Originally Posted by kwillia
> 
> 
> Explain yourself. Your comment makes no sense.



Simply this: Perhaps God DID want that baker to respond just the way he did. Who are you to say otherwise? Do you have the mind of God?


----------



## baydoll

Larry Gude said:


> Faith is whatever it means to you. I am an American first, Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are my bibles. They, and they alone, the principles of individual rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are the ONLY things standing between you and I and a hostile world. They codify our rights to believe as we see fit, think as we see fit, worship and speak as we see fit, right up to harming one another. Absent the United States of America, Christianity is in a tough spot world wide.
> 
> Whatever I know or don't know of God, follows my belief in those words. Now, I do firmly believe we are, basically, a Christian nation and that Christ played a large role in the nations birth. That's why I liked your other post so much; you are sincere and represent the best of the faith, in my view.



Thank you for that Larry.


----------



## baydoll

Beta said:


> It sounds like you trying to teach homosexuals that their lifestyle is wrong, you're trying to play Jesus.  Isn't that the same thing?





> 2 Corinthians 5:17
> 
> Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.
> 
> 
> 1 Corinthians 11:1
> 
> Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.
> 
> 1 John 2:6
> 
> the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.



I'm trying to be an imitator of what Christ did. Christ would reach out to homosexuals by teaching (and warning) them the road they're on is leading them to destruction (hell). And if they don't get off that road SOON they'll SOON find themselves facing the wrath of God one day. Not just homosexuals but ANYONE who is without Christ. ALL need to be taught this Truth. 

I do this because I love these people and I don't want them to suffer this horrible fate. If I didn't love them, I would care less where they were headed.


----------



## baydoll

Well folks I'm going to have to bow out of this conversation. I pretty much said all I can and  I feel like we're going round in circles anyway. 


So I'm headed over to hotcoffee's excellent study on the Book of Revelation, hope to see you all there!


----------



## Larry Gude

baydoll said:


> So I'm headed over to hotcoffee's excellent study on the Book of Revelation, hope to see you all there!



Will there be cake????


----------



## baydoll

larry gude said:


> will there be cake????



You never know....


----------



## Toxick

Chris0nllyn said:


> No offense,



This is super-secret code for: _"I'm about to intentionally insult you, but I don't want it to appear like it's intentional"_







Chris0nllyn said:


> but citing "facts" and "logic" in a thread about religion is funny to me.



Believe it or not, some of us came to God through "facts" and "logic".

So, no offense, but I think you're full of ####.








(No, I'm not going to explain myself - It's something I came to over the course of many agnostic years, so it's not something I'm interested in briefly and superficially bandying about here - and I seriously doubt you'd be honestly open to anything I had to say anyway)




Chris0nllyn said:


> On another note, what if all you super-religious folks are wrong?



You're familiar with Pascal's Wager?

If we're wrong, then.... so what? 






Chris0nllyn said:


> What if there is no afterlife, and you just, die?



I wish I could believe this.

Honestly.
The concept of dying and then ceasing to exist is attractive to me, compared to the concept of eternal life.

I have pondered the concept of eternity, at length, and the concept is unbelievably terrifying.




Seriously terrifying. It terrifies me. It's one of the few things that actually _scares_ me.

Even if it's pleasant - even if it's the paradise we all hope it is.... Just sit back and think about how long "forever" is. The very idea is incomprehensible to the mind. 




I'm open to the possibility (probability) that the transformation that occurs upon death removes the chill from this idea, but that's not very comforting to me.




Chris0nllyn said:


> Sure, some of you may actually believe that it's your calling to do what you do, but what if it's all for nothing?



Again, who cares. In the end it won't matter if it was a waste. How many billions of people are currently dead with nothing to even show they were here.


----------



## Hank

Chris0nllyn said:


> No offense, but citing "facts" and "logic" in a thread about religion is funny to me.
> 
> The burden of proof lies with the believers, and nothing in that article does that except for citing passages of a book written thousands of years ago, and re-written over and over again.
> 
> On another note, what if all you super-religious folks are wrong? What if there is no afterlife, and you just, die? Do you honestly believe that your short and valuable time on this earth is better spent telling others that their actions are sins and following god's plan, or would it be better spent living your own life to it's fullest? Sure, some of you may actually believe that it's your calling to do what you do, but what if it's all for nothing?



Boom!


----------



## Chris0nllyn

Toxick said:


> This is super-secret code for: _"I'm about to intentionally insult you, but I don't want it to appear like it's intentional"_
> 
> Believe it or not, some of us came to God through "facts" and "logic".
> 
> So, no offense, but I think you're full of ####.
> 
> (No, I'm not going to explain myself - It's something I came to over the course of many agnostic years, so it's not something I'm interested in briefly and superficially bandying about here - and I seriously doubt you'd be honestly open to anything I had to say anyway)
> 
> Nothing about religion is factual. there's nothign factual about an imaginary person in the sky watching over every single person in the universe.
> 
> There's nothing factual about praying to cure cancer, or for it to rain, or any other cause obviously associated with solid scientific research and fact. The same research and fact many Christians rely on throughout their daily lives, whether they like it (or realize it) or not.
> 
> I truely meant "no offense" because I realize this is a hot topic and people truely believe there's a higher power and I hope that one can take my statements and not truley take offense. I was mistaken, apparently.
> 
> To your last point, I enjoy learning. I attend church (sometimes) because I am curious about religion in general. So, you can choose to beleiev that I've got my head in the sand about the issues here, but the reality is, I've have conversations on the subject, and I specifically recall conversing with Psy about it. At that time, I specifically mentioned that while Science has proved a miriad of things, it has not proven where our feelings of love, envy, and the like have come from. Some things science simply can't explain and I acknowledge that, but I don't believe that comes from a hgher power without some sort of evidence. Evidence I've yet to see from anyone.
> 
> You're familiar with Pascal's Wager?
> 
> If we're wrong, then.... so what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I saw no signs of a divinity, I would fix myself in denial. If I saw everywhere the marks of a Creator, I would repose peacefully in faith. But seeing too much to deny Him, and too little to assure me, I am in a pitiful state, and I would wish a hundred times that if a god sustains nature it would reveal Him without ambiguity. - Pascal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I am wrong, I'm faithful that I lived a fantastic life just the way I wanted without fear that a mythical man was watching over my shoulder all the time and can decide my eternal fate.
> 
> 
> I wish I could believe this.
> 
> Honestly.
> The concept of dying and then ceasing to exist is attractive to me, compared to the concept of eternal life.
> 
> I have pondered the concept of eternity, at length, and the concept is unbelievably terrifying.
> 
> Seriously terrifying. It terrifies me. It's one of the few things that actually _scares_ me.
> 
> Even if it's pleasant - even if it's the paradise we all hope it is.... Just sit back and think about how long "forever" is. The very idea is incomprehensible to the mind.
> 
> I'm open to the possibility (probability) that the transformation that occurs upon death removes the chill from this idea, but that's not very comforting to me.
> 
> Eternity is terrifying, but the earth is not eternally old, nor is Jesus, so how can we even begin to comprehend eternity?
> 
> Do you believe in evolution? Do you believe that men are decendants of apes? If that's the case, then man is simply an animal, in general terms, correct? It's either that, or do you believe that god mad a man, then used his rib to create a woman out of thin air, and chose to only do it a few thousand years ago?
> 
> Again, who cares. In the end it won't matter if it was a waste. How many billions of people are currently dead with nothing to even show they were here.
> 
> I don't really care. I don't care what peopel do, nor believe, I was just asking a question.
> 
> Billions dead with no evidence of an afterlife. I'll take my chances.
Click to expand...


----------



## Toxick

I ####ing hate inlining within quotes.




Chris0nllyn said:


> Nothing about religion is factual. there's nothign factual about an imaginary person in the sky watching over every single person in the universe.



Which is exactly what I do not intend to argue the subject with you. I had no illusion that you would take me at my word, and honestly - I don't much care. As I indicated earlier in this thread, proselytizing in this day and age is a useless endeavor.





Chris0nllyn said:


> I truely meant "no offense" because I realize this is a hot topic and people truely believe there's a higher power and I hope that one can take my statements and not truley take offense. I was mistaken, apparently.



You did not offend me. I don't care if you offended anyone else.

I think that my point, more or less, is that when you state absolutely "Nothing about religion is factual", you're doing the exact same thing as a religious person who says "Everything about (my) religion is factual". Although atheists will vehemently deny it, atheism is no less a religion than theism, and the zealotry is no less apparent.



Chris0nllyn said:


> To your last point, I enjoy learning. I attend church (sometimes) because I am curious about religion in general. So, you can choose to beleiev that I've got my head in the sand about the issues here, but the reality is, I've have conversations on the subject, and I specifically recall conversing with Psy about it. At that time, I specifically mentioned that while Science has proved a miriad of things, it has not proven where our feelings of love, envy, and the like have come from. Some things science simply can't explain and I acknowledge that, but I don't believe that comes from a hgher power without some sort of evidence. Evidence I've yet to see from anyone.



I didn't say you had your head in the sand, but if you're going to pretend that you're not close-minded on the subject - especially after I just read the above post, and the unwavering declarations it contains - then we really have nothing left about this subject to talk about.

And science is simply a body of knowledge. If "science" can't explain something, it merely means the explanation has not yet been found. Science can - and eventually will - explain everything. While I believe in God, I do not believe He works outside of the laws of nature.



Chris0nllyn said:


> If I saw no signs of a divinity, I would fix myself in denial. If I saw everywhere the marks of a Creator, I would repose peacefully in faith. But seeing too much to deny Him, and too little to assure me, I am in a pitiful state, and I would wish a hundred times that if a god sustains nature it would reveal Him without ambiguity. - Pascal



That's not Pascal's wager.

Pascal's wager is often represented with a boolean chart, but it boils down to this:

A) If there is a God, and I don't believe, I will go to Hell.
B) If there is a God, and I believe, I will go to Heaven.
C) If there is no God, and I don't believe, doesn't matter.
D) If there is no God and I do believe, doesn't matter.
Of those four results, B is most desirable.

As a counterpoint to what you were saying D, isn't really that bad.



Chris0nllyn said:


> Do you believe in evolution? Do you believe that men are decendants of apes?




I do.

I believe that much of The Book of Genesis is allegorical.








The purist doctrine that "you can't pick and choose what you believe" is horse####.


----------



## Larry Gude

Toxick said:


> That's not Pascal's wager.
> 
> Pascal's wager is often represented with a boolean chart, but it boils down to this:
> 
> A) If there is a God, and I don't believe, I will go to Hell.
> B) If there is a God, and I believe, I will go to Heaven.
> C) If there is no God, and I don't believe, doesn't matter.
> D) If there is no God and I do believe, doesn't matter.
> Of those four results, B is most desirable.
> 
> As a counterpoint to what you were saying D, isn't really that bad.
> 
> .




Ok but, besides the assumption that God exists in A and B, Pascal also posits that Heaven is wonderful and Hell is awful, another act of faith, and does not include ANY cost of potentially spending a lifetime of believing in something that may turn out not to exist. B is only most desirable if you believe in God AND he turns out to exist AND heaven is just great. And A is only bad if Hell is, what, worse than the pains of life? C could very well be the path to a fun life. D makes the assumption there is no negative to a Godly life if there is no God.


----------



## Toxick

Larry Gude said:


> C could very well be the path to a fun life. D makes the assumption there is no negative to a Godly life if there is no God.





And you appear to be making the assumption (or at least implication) that a fun life and a Godly life are mutually exclusive.


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Toxick said:


> I think that my point, more or less, is that when you state absolutely "Nothing about religion is factual", you're doing the exact same thing as a religious person who says "Everything about (my) religion is factual". Although atheists will vehemently deny it, atheism is no less a religion than theism, and the zealotry is no less apparent.



Granted "No religion can be proven to be factual" may have been a better phrasing than "Nothing about religion is factual". There is an obvious distinction between the metaphysical and 'factual' reality. Until there is proof that Christianity is the one true religion, it must be placed in the same non-factual category with all other religions and all other gods thought up by man in the course of human history. Many religions include virgin births, miracles, resurrections. Christianity is not special in this regard.

Regarding "atheism is no less a religion than theism"....seriously? Perhaps you would like to further expound on how the absence of religion is somehow equivalent to religion? Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position.


----------



## Radiant1

ProximaCentauri said:


> Regarding "atheism is no less a religion than theism"....seriously? Perhaps you would like to further expound on how the absence of religion is somehow equivalent to religion? Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position.



Not a religion in it's strictest definition, but Atheists sure do seem to participate in apologetics for Atheism and spend, what seems to me, an inordinate amount of time on religious forums/lists/etc proseltyzing for their "faith"(?), "philosophy"(?), whatever you prefer to call it, and seem to worship the entity of science. 

When I see Atheists come into the religion forum here I think to myself, "Oh good Lord, here they come". It's no different than the bible-thumping fundies who want to cram their version of scripture down my throat. I dislike you both equally.

Oh and btw, Buddhism is godless and not a religion per se but everyone groups it as such, so get over it you Atheistic proseltyzing zealot.


----------



## Larry Gude

Toxick said:


> And you appear to be making the assumption (or at least implication) that a fun life and a Godly life are mutually exclusive.



No, not, not at all. I am simply challenging that assertion which is central to the wager. I am perfectly willing to accept that the wager is correct and that B is the best choice. But, I am not a believer so, naturally, I weigh the costs, potential costs, of that being 'best'. Again, I am a Christian and side with them, us. My issue here, again, is the diminishing of the faith, especially in light of the onslaught of Islam; we're losing. That is bad for my nation, my people and my right to be an agnostic as well as my right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. 

Someone whose judgment leads them to feel their faith is threatened and betrayed by baking someone else a cake, that, ultimately, is bad for me if that guy is part of the fabric of what stands between liberty and tyranny.


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Radiant1 said:


> Oh and btw, Buddhism is godless and not a religion per se but everyone groups it as such, so get over it you Atheistic proseltyzing zealot.



Whatever, call me anything, just don't call me late for dinner. Religious dogma has you believing that you are eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood when you partake in the Eucharist. 
Personally, If I were that insane, I'd rather hope that I could come up with something more fun, - like saying prayers over my pancakes would actually turn them into the body of Elvis. 

I'll stick with my sanity and Atheism, and besides, it requires so very little of my time.

And realize you are an Atheist too with respect to all other religions. I just happen to believe in one less religion than you do.


----------



## Toxick

ProximaCentauri said:


> Regarding "atheism is no less a religion than theism"....seriously?



Seriously.




ProximaCentauri said:


> Perhaps you would like to further expound on how the absence of religion is somehow equivalent to religion?



Ok.

First of all, it's not the "absence of a religion". It's the absence of the belief in a deity. For most atheists, it's an active belief that there is no god. (This is subtly distinct from "lack of belief", but very real and very prominent). But just because your religion isn't centralized around a deity, makes it no less of one. Confusionism, Taoism, Buddhism, Shintoism - none of these religions have a deity.

Also, atheists are absolutely and unwaveringly convinced of their own correctness. 
They enjoy telling people about what they believe. 
They really seem to enjoy trying to convince others that their way is the correct one, even going so far as advertising on billboards, buses, in subway stations, newspaper ads, and so on.


In what way is it NOT a religion.





ProximaCentauri said:


> Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position.




Maybe the worst comparison I've ever heard.


----------



## Radiant1

ProximaCentauri said:


> Whatever, call me anything, just don't call me late for dinner. Religious dogma has you believing that you are eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood when you partake in the Eucharist.



You weren't around when I previously made it public but it's not religious dogma that makes me believe. 



ProximaCentauri said:


> Personally, If I were that insane, I'd rather hope that I could come up with something more fun, - like saying prayers over my pancakes would actually turn them into the body of Elvis.



Go figure, and here I thought eating a zombie god was fun enough. 



ProximaCentauri said:


> I'll stick with my sanity and Atheism, and besides, it requires so very little of my time.



By all means stick with it. As long as you're not trying to cram it down my throat, I could give two shits less. :shrug:

For something that requires so little of your time, you sure do spend enough of it trying to convince others and taking the time to throw insults as well. 

Btw, your sanity was in question when you posted in your sub-Sahara African AIDS thread. The founding member of NAMBLA was an atheist. Do you think he was sane too?



ProximaCentauri said:


> And realize you are an Atheist too with respect to all other religions. I just happen to believe in one less religion than you do.



No, I'm not. You're making a grandiose assumption about what I actually believe.


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Toxick said:


> In what way is it NOT a religion.



Here's a few ways to consider...

There is no Bible of Atheism.

There are no writings or scriptures written long ago, telling one how to be an Atheist.

There are no God(s) of Atheism. 

There are no rituals of Atheism.

Atheists do not make unjustifiable claims about the cosmos or human evolution based on bronze age scriptural writings.

An Atheist realizes that the existence of a supernatural cannot be disproved. I may say that I am 99.9999% convinced that no God(s) exist and prefer to live my life based on this and other probabilities of a reality based world, not a metaphysically based one.

Only religious types make claims of certainty regarding their religion and their God. A claim that many are willing to die for, and to kill others for.


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Radiant1 said:


> No, I'm not. You're making a grandiose assumption about what I actually believe.



A simple assumption, not a grandiose one. You self-identify as Catholic, therefore, you do not believe in Islam for example. That makes you an Atheist with respect to Islam. You are 100% convinced that the Bible is the one true word of the creator of the universe and that the Koran is false. Muslims are 100% convinced the Koran is, and that you're going to hell. 

Religion deserves our ridicule in the 21st century. It erodes our collective intelligence as a nation. And worse, it threatens our stability and future prosperity as a nation. Islam and Christianity are two sides of the same coin. Both are complicit in threatening the stability of the world. When humans believe they are justified killing others in the name of their God, it doesn't bode well for humanity.

There is no question that our stature has been eroding in the eyes of the developed world, in large part due to our Christian culture (and fanatical beliefs that have spread into government). Countries like Sweden, Switzerland, and many developed countries of the world are in the process of chucking religion into the dust-bin of history. These same countries are far ahead of the United States in education, health, and happiness, and overall stability and well-being.

We somehow think we are still exceptional as a Nation. Teaching creationism in our schools makes us no better than the Taliban who teach exactly the same thing to their children. Our European allies are concerned with our great military might combined with our religiosity. As well they should be.


----------



## Radiant1

ProximaCentauri said:


>



No, I'm still not, and that's a mighty fine stump you gave yourself.


----------



## Larry Gude

ProximaCentauri said:


> Religion deserves our ridicule in the 21st century. It erodes our collective intelligence as a nation. And worse, it threatens our stability and future prosperity as a nation. Islam and Christianity are two sides of the same coin. Both are complicit in threatening the stability of the world. When humans believe they are justified killing others in the name of their God, it doesn't bode well for humanity. .



That view leaves out an enormous 'what if'. 

It is little more than an observation to say that religion always has played a central role in civilization. Call it what you will; the desire for faith, organizing principles for community, hocus pocus. The simple fact of the matter is that civilization at the most basic level requires agreement and cooperation and that has to be based on something. Even when it was based on brute force, pack, animal force, hardly what anyone would call 'civilized', faith still emerges to advance the civilization beyond 'do as I say'. Even the most brutish organizing principle in mankinds history, communism, is based on faith. 

From there, religions come and go and, over time, things boiled down to what we have today. While, to an atheist, no religion sounds good, it ignores the reality that absent ANY dominant religion, a new one WILL replace it. Christianity is being replaced by worship of corporations in the US and much of the West. They are the dominant faiths and, if that sounds absurd, it is only by dismissing faith, any faith, as an organizing principle. 

While it is certainly fair and reasonable to say that teaching one set of principles is equivalent to teaching another, that is, by no means, the same as saying they are of equal value. Given the choice between the teachings of Christ or Mohamed, I'll take the former. You may argue you'd choose neither and, as a free autonomous individual, you can, in this Christian nation, choose that course. But, you're simply choosing, whether you acknowledge it or not, whatever faith you happen to think is better. You can prove this to yourself by simply considering your views of right and wrong and what those views are based on. The point is that Christianity has allowed for that over time. If it dies, something else will replace it and I am not in favor of that being Islam. I do not consider the two equivalent. I think Christianity has, demonstrably, to have made us much better. 

If you disagree, you and I could be having this conversation in public anywhere in the US and all of the Western world. Is there one place we could be having it in Muslim lands?


----------



## Larry Gude

ProximaCentauri said:


> Here's a few ways to consider...
> 
> There is no Bible of Atheism.
> 
> There are no writings or scriptures written long ago, telling one how to be an Atheist.
> 
> There are no God(s) of Atheism.
> 
> There are no rituals of Atheism.
> 
> Atheists do not make unjustifiable claims about the cosmos or human evolution based on bronze age scriptural writings.
> 
> An Atheist realizes that the existence of a supernatural cannot be disproved. I may say that I am 99.9999% convinced that no God(s) exist and prefer to live my life based on this and other probabilities of a reality based world, not a metaphysically based one.
> 
> Only religious types make claims of certainty regarding their religion and their God. A claim that many are willing to die for, and to kill others for.




What do you base your ideas of right and wrong on? Why do you believe they are correct?


----------



## Larry Gude

Toxick said:


> I wish I could believe this.
> 
> Honestly.
> The concept of dying and then ceasing to exist is attractive to me, compared to the concept of eternal life.
> 
> I have pondered the concept of eternity, at length, and the concept is unbelievably terrifying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously terrifying. It terrifies me. It's one of the few things that actually _scares_ me.
> 
> Even if it's pleasant - even if it's the paradise we all hope it is.... Just sit back and think about how long "forever" is. The very idea is incomprehensible to the mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm open to the possibility (probability) that the transformation that occurs upon death removes the chill from this idea, but that's not very comforting to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, who cares. In the end it won't matter if it was a waste. How many billions of people are currently dead with nothing to even show they were here.



That is interesting. The concept of an afterlife doesn't scare me in the least as, by definition, it is, as you say incomprehensible to us as living human beings. I mean, if you were to think eternal afterlife is sitting in front of a broken TV and that is all there is, forever, OK, I get being terrified of that in theory but, again, that is looking at it in context of being a live person. To me, a life ending is like a battery dying. That energy went somewhere but, it is no longer in a usable state AS PER what a battery is and can be used for or what it can do. 

From there, the possibilities are endless. Rebirth? Maybe. Come back as a plant? An animal? A blinking light on the printer? A gas? Point being, if we assume and accept that being human is, at core, simply a state of energy, WHATEVER happens, heaven, hell, nothing, it CAN'T be in context of being stuck, forever, in front of a broken TV because no matter what happens it is not comprehensible to us in the state we are in when we are alive. 

Of course, I can imagine someone terrified of that, truly, literally, and spending every ounce of energy on self preservation to avoid it as long as possible but, even that person WILL, eventually, become exhausted and die. So, that seems a waste of time. But, hey what do I, truly, know? Even if it IS sitting in front of a broken TV, for all eternity, the last thing I care about is pondering something like that that I have zero choice in anyway. Death is in my future, somewhere. I'm just happily busy trying to figure out each day let alone eternity.


----------



## Toxick

ProximaCentauri said:


> There is no Bible of Atheism.
> 
> There are no writings or scriptures written long ago, telling one how to be an Atheist.



Literature is not a necessary characteristic of a religion. While some religions have these, not all of them do.



ProximaCentauri said:


> There are no God(s) of Atheism.



I've already addressed this, my point appears to have been ignored or disregarded.



ProximaCentauri said:


> There are no rituals of Atheism.
> 
> Atheists do not make unjustifiable claims about the cosmos or human evolution based on bronze age scriptural writings.
> 
> An Atheist realizes that the existence of a supernatural cannot be disproved. I may say that I am 99.9999% convinced that no God(s) exist and prefer to live my life based on this and other probabilities of a reality based world, not a metaphysically based one.



While these may be valid points while arguing in favor of atheism, none of them makes your belief system any more or less of a religion.


BTW: Theists also realize that the existence of a deity is not disprovable. Many rely on this as proof of a deity in and of itself, or to stymie discussion. I usually avoid this particular crutch, and it makes me cringe when they use it. Believe it or not I am a scientist and I realize that by virtue of the scientific method one is not required to prove a negative.




ProximaCentauri said:


> Only religious types make claims of certainty regarding their religion and their God.



 Ok.




ProximaCentauri said:


> A claim that many are willing to die for, and to kill others for.



Again.... an argument you may use while trying to convince others to join your religion, but does not un-define it as a religion. I'm also thinking that you're conflating "Religion" and "Organized Religion".


----------



## Toxick

Larry Gude said:


> That is interesting. The concept of an afterlife doesn't scare me in the least as, by definition, it is, as you say incomprehensible to us as living human beings. I mean, if you were to think eternal afterlife is sitting in front of a broken TV and that is all there is, forever, OK, I get being terrified of that in theory but, again, that is looking at it in context of being a live person.




No, I don't believe the afterlife is like sitting in front of a broken television, or an equally vapid experience. I also don't believe it's clouds and harps and wings..... If it were, I'd find the nearest cloud and jump off of it.

Whatever it is, when I try to imagine it... I picture the concept of eternity as a physical dimension rather than a temporal one. Then I picture the most vast thing I can think of, as huge and expansive as my mind can fathom..... Then I compress it to a mote and imagine a size relative in vastness to that mote. And then again... and again... and again... and again...

Then I apply that to time and then I imagine that I have to pass that time.







And then I consider the human lifespan compared to that unending vast eternity and it makes this life completely and thoroughly pointless.

Excuse me. I'm going to go curl up in a fetal position for a while.


----------



## Larry Gude

Toxick said:


> No, I don't believe the afterlife is like sitting in front of a broken television, or an equally vapid experience. I also don't believe it's clouds and harps and wings..... If it were, I'd find the nearest cloud and jump off of it.
> 
> Whatever it is, when I try to imagine it... I picture the concept of eternity as a physical dimension rather than a temporal one. Then I picture the most vast thing I can think of, as huge and expansive as my mind can fathom..... Then I compress it to a mote and imagine a size relative in vastness to that mote. And then again... and again... and again... and again...
> 
> Then I apply that to time and then I imagine that I have to pass that time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then I consider the human lifespan compared to that unending vast eternity and it makes this life completely and thoroughly pointless.
> 
> Excuse me. I'm going to go curl up in a fetal position for a while.



Interesting. If I thought of it in human terms of 'passing' time, I'd probably be freaking out, too. In my minds eye, that vastness, that eternity, will play out in a decidedly non human consciousness and, therefore, be no more of a concern to me in ANY afterlife than real life is to, say, a bug or an animal or blade of grass; the point being existence, what may be. Not some sort of 'passage' of time. In my mind, ONLY humans think in those terms and that is because we are innately aware of our mortality.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Toxick

Larry Gude said:


> In my minds eye, that vastness, that eternity, will play out in a decidedly non human consciousness and, therefore, be no more of a concern to me in ANY afterlife than real life is to, say, a bug or an animal or blade of grass; the point being existence, what may be. Not some sort of 'passage' of time. In my mind, ONLY humans think in those terms and that is because we are innately aware of our mortality.
> 
> Hope that helps.





Well, like I said a few post back, the I'm sure the transformation that occurs during death will probably make the concept more palatable, but that's little comfort to me now, since I am incapable of imagining what that transformation entails.


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Larry Gude said:


> That view leaves out an enormous 'what if'.
> 
> While it is certainly fair and reasonable to say that teaching one set of principles is equivalent to teaching another, that is, by no means, the same as saying they are of equal value. Given the choice between the teachings of Christ or Mohamed, I'll take the former. You may argue you'd choose neither and, as a free autonomous individual, you can, in this Christian nation, choose that course. But, you're simply choosing, whether you acknowledge it or not, whatever faith you happen to think is better. You can prove this to yourself by simply considering your views of right and wrong and what those views are based on. The point is that Christianity has allowed for that over time. If it dies, something else will replace it and I am not in favor of that being Islam. I do not consider the two equivalent. I think Christianity has, demonstrably, to have made us much better.
> 
> If you disagree, you and I could be having this conversation in public anywhere in the US and all of the Western world. Is there one place we could be having it in Muslim lands?



Recognize that you believe Christianity to be the more 'moral' of the two religions because you have been indoctrinated in a Christian culture and belief system from a young age. 

Consider that a serial killer, who has specialized in the rape and killing of young children, need only to 'accept Christ' before his execution, and he spends an eternity in paradise. While a homosexual (homosexuality is genetic/epigenetic determined and common not only in humans but throughout the animal kingdom) who lives an exemplary moral life assisting the poor, but lives his life as a homosexual, ends up in hell and suffers unspeakable torment and anguish for all eternity. 

One thing should be perfectly clear to you from this example. Christianity has absolutely nothing to do with moral accountability.

The Biblical God is quite fond of slavery (note the new testament does not refute slavery), mass genocide, selling one's daughter into sexual slavery, on and on. If there is a more immoral religion, claiming to be moral, I can't think of one. 

We have free speech in this country thanks to the founding fathers, not Christianity. Jefferson and Adams were deists, not theists, and despised organized religion. Thomas Payne and Ben Franklin were atheists.


----------



## Larry Gude

ProximaCentauri said:


> Recognize that you believe Christianity to be the more 'moral' of the two religions because you have been indoctrinated in a Christian culture and belief system from a young age.  .



My views may be easier to understand thusly; Moral or otherwise, I recognize Christianity to be the more tolerant of my morals, such as they are, and less likely, among the two, to chop my ####ing head off for my sins. 

Even if they won't bake a cake for my brothers wedding.


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Toxick said:


> Literature is not a necessary characteristic of a religion. While some religions have these, not all of them do.
> 
> I've already addressed this, my point appears to have been ignored or disregarded.
> 
> While these may be valid points while arguing in favor of atheism, none of them makes your belief system any more or less of a religion.
> 
> BTW: Theists also realize that the existence of a deity is not disprovable. Many rely on this as proof of a deity in and of itself, or to stymie discussion. I usually avoid this particular crutch, and it makes me cringe when they use it. Believe it or not I am a scientist...



Hmmm, suppose intelligent beings elsewhere in the universe, where for reasons of their evolution of consciousness and rational thinking, never developed myths involving Gods, or any worship of any kind of entity, or beliefs relating to mysticism. No beliefs in heaven above, hell below, or an afterlife. Only their lives to live in service to one another and with an unquenchable desire to learn more about the universe and their own planet, and only engaged in activities to further enhance the survival of their species, and the species of any other sentient life on their planet. Would you call them religious? Would you claim somehow that their belief system fit the definition of a religion?
If you wish to believe that abscense


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Toxick said:


> Well, like I said a few post back, the I'm sure the transformation that occurs during death will probably make the concept more palatable, but that's little comfort to me now, since I am incapable of imagining what that transformation entails.



So you're "sure the transformation that occurs during death will probably make the concept more palatable"...

Are you sure you're sure? You're convinced of a 'transformation' upon death? And further, you're convinced this 'transformation' will make the concept of eternal life more palatable to you? Not to mention, your extraordinary claim of an 'eternal afterlife'. As a scientist, what evidence do you have for these claims?


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Larry Gude said:


> My views may be easier to understand thusly; Moral or otherwise, I recognize Christianity to be the more tolerant of my morals, such as they are, and less likely, among the two, to chop my ####ing head off for my sins.
> 
> Even if they won't bake a cake for my brothers wedding.



Fair enough, I would probably need to go back and read your posts, but I think we're in some semblance of agreement on the cake thing.


----------



## Toxick

ProximaCentauri said:


> As a scientist, what evidence do you have for these claims?





As I said earlier, I have spent years coming to the conclusions I've come to. I have absolutely no inclination to discuss or debate them here. 

I'm not trying to convert anyone, and I never pretended to.

And even if I did choose to discuss my conclusions and evidence I've collected, I sincerely doubt you would consider them with the depth I think they deserve - and even if you did, I don't believe you'd accept any of it, so I'm not going to waste my time. If you want to debate the existence of God and/or the afterlife, feel free to do so with someone else. That's not what I entered this conversation for, I'm not interested drifting in that direction now.


----------



## Toxick

ProximaCentauri said:


> If you wish to believe that abscense






You're not much into reading comprehension and retention.

I already made the distinction between an "absence of belief" and a "belief in absence".





As for your hypothetical alien society, I'd have to analyze way more than the information you've blithely provided.


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Toxick said:


> No, I don't believe the afterlife is like sitting in front of a broken television, or an equally vapid experience. I also don't believe it's clouds and harps and wings..... If it were, I'd find the nearest cloud and jump off of it.
> 
> Whatever it is, when I try to imagine it... I picture the concept of eternity as a physical dimension rather than a temporal one. Then I picture the most vast thing I can think of, as huge and expansive as my mind can fathom..... Then I compress it to a mote and imagine a size relative in vastness to that mote. And then again... and again... and again... and again...
> 
> Then I apply that to time and then I imagine that I have to pass that time.
> 
> And then I consider the human lifespan compared to that unending vast eternity and it makes this life completely and thoroughly pointless.
> 
> Excuse me. I'm going to go curl up in a fetal position for a while.



Quite a bit of mental masturbation and self-inflicted mental anguish over something unknowable and for which not the slightest of evidence exists for. Rational and critical thought - as a scientist - should tell you to just cut this sh*t out. Besides, it's non-productive and self-absorbed.


----------



## Toxick

ProximaCentauri said:


> Quite a bit of mental masturbation and self-inflicted mental anguish over something unknowable and for which not the slightest of evidence exists for. Rational and critical thought - as a scientist - should tell you to just cut this sh*t out. Besides, it's non-productive and self-absorbed.





Wow - I never thought of that before. When you put it like that, it makes so much sense! I'm wasting my whole life!


----------



## Zguy28

Toxick said:


> Wow - I never thought of that before. When you put it like that, it makes so much sense! I'm wasting my whole life!


http://www.desiringgod.org/books/dont-waste-your-life


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Toxick said:


> As I said earlier, I have spent years coming to the conclusions I've come to. I have absolutely no inclination to discuss or debate them here.
> 
> I'm not trying to convert anyone, and I never pretended to.
> 
> And even if I did choose to discuss my conclusions and evidence I've collected, I sincerely doubt you would consider them with the depth I think they deserve - and even if you did, I don't believe you'd accept any of it, so I'm not going to waste my time. If you want to debate the existence of God and/or the afterlife, feel free to do so with someone else. That's not what I entered this conversation for, I'm not interested drifting in that direction now.



Frankly, I though that would be your reply. Just recognize - as a scientist, if you indeed are one - that 'faith' hijacks reason.


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Toxick said:


> You're not much into reading comprehension and retention.
> 
> I already made the distinction between an "absence of belief" and a "belief in absence".
> 
> As for your hypothetical alien society, I'd have to analyze way more than the information you've blithely provided.



Resorting to ad hominem arguments so soon? Sort of unexpected, and unbecoming of a 'scientist', wouldn't you say?


----------



## Toxick

ProximaCentauri said:


> Resorting to ad hominem arguments so soon? Sort of unexpected, and unbecoming of a 'scientist', wouldn't you say?



Ad hominem? 




In what way have I attacked you personally?

In this conversation the only one who has been insulting is you.


----------



## Larry Gude

Toxick said:


> Well, like I said a few post back, the I'm sure the transformation that occurs during death will probably make the concept more palatable, but that's little comfort to me now, since I am incapable of imagining what that transformation entails.



Kewl. I get that. I've either moved past that or haven't come to that hurdle yet!!!


----------



## hotcoffee

Look at the interest this thread has garnered.  

I wonder sometimes....  if there had be internet back in the days of Sodom... would the comments to the tread have been the same?


----------



## Larry Gude

hotcoffee said:


> Look at the interest this thread has garnered.
> 
> I wonder sometimes....  if there had be internet back in the days of Sodom... would the comments to the tread have been the same?



That's a GREAT question!

At core, the internet is a way to easily share thoughts and ideas. If you go back that far in history, for sure, the sharing of thoughts and ideas was not only very hard to do but, very risky. People then, I suspect, act the way people do today when they think the authorities are listening or are in public or in church; they say what they think they need to say. So, if we had the web and it was private, relatively so, I would suspect people would question authority and orthodoxy in the same fashion. 

It is inconceivable to me that any religion could have gotten off the ground with free flow and exchange of thoughts and ideas. 

Great question!


----------



## Amused_despair

hotcoffee said:


> Look at the interest this thread has garnered.
> 
> I wonder sometimes....  if there had be internet back in the days of Sodom... would the comments to the tread have been the same?



Sodom brings up an interesting thought.  Sodom, Gomorrah, the Great Flood:  I wonder how many pregnant mothers were there.  How many children under the age of 13?  How many little babies, now many unborn babies, how many toddlers?  How many innocent lives snuffed out through no choice of their own?


----------



## Zguy28

Amused_despair said:


> Sodom brings up an interesting thought.  Sodom, Gomorrah, the Great Flood:  I wonder how many pregnant mothers were there.  How many children under the age of 13?  How many little babies, now many unborn babies, how many toddlers?  How many innocent lives snuffed out through no choice of their own?



God alone is the only one who has the right to create life and to take life as He pleases. Please consider that before sitting in judgment on Him and weigh it carefully my friend, because someday He will sit in judgement on all of us.


----------



## Larry Gude

ProximaCentauri said:


> Quite a bit of mental masturbation and self-inflicted mental anguish over something unknowable and for which not the slightest of evidence exists for. Rational and critical thought - as a scientist - should tell you to just cut this sh*t out. Besides, it's non-productive and self-absorbed.



That's not accurate. A great many scientists and engineers are believers, many coming to it later in life as their knowledge and experience in their fields grew, and that is because the facts of our existence is no more explicable by science than it is by faith. In fact, some argue that it is much more far fetched and closed minded to be an atheist than to be a believer because there is more probability that there is some sort of higher power than not. Science says you don't know what you can't prove. Science can not prove the existence of God. Nor can it disprove God.


----------



## Beta

baydoll said:


> Is gay marriage somehow more sinful than adultery or beating your wife or blasphemy, etc? Absolutely not.
> 
> I wouldn't attend a wedding ceremony if the groom was cheating on his fiance, or beating her up either.
> 
> Blasphemy? What does that have to do with marriage?


So are some sins worse than others?  Is homosexuality in some egregious class of sinners that lying, cheating, etc don't match?  Out of all the sins that a person can possibly commit, this seems to be one of the most benign out there.  Most sins not only hurt yourself, but hurt others.  If everyone is a sinner, and by supporting our friends we're indirectly supporting their sins, why go to anyone's wedding?  We shouldn't be going to the weddings of sinners, right?



hotcoffee said:


> Look at the interest this thread has garnered.
> 
> I wonder sometimes....  if there had be internet back in the days of Sodom... would the comments to the tread have been the same?


If the internet existed back in the days of Jesus, things would be a bit different.  Either his miracles would have more proof, or everyone would be a cynic and argue against the science they see in the name of...

Nevermind.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

Zguy28 said:


> God alone is the only one who has the right to create life and to take life as He pleases. Please consider that before sitting in judgment on Him and weigh it carefully my friend, because someday He will sit in judgement on all of us.



Could a thug not take your life as he pleased?


----------



## Merlin99

Chris0nllyn said:


> Could a thug not take your life as he pleased?


God gets to do it without any repercussions, thug goes to hell for it.


----------



## czygvtwkr

Merlin99 said:


> God gets to do it without any repercussions, thug goes to hell for it.



By that argument so could the devil,  i mean what else is going to happen to him?


----------



## czygvtwkr

Beta said:


> If everyone is a sinner, and by supporting our friends we're indirectly supporting their sins, why go to anyone's wedding?  We shouldn't be going to the weddings of sinners, right?



That is an interesting question,  what is the opinion of a couple of swingers or porn stars getting married?


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Larry Gude said:


> That's not accurate. A great many scientists and engineers are believers, many coming to it later in life as their knowledge and experience in their fields grew, and that is because the facts of our existence is no more explicable by science than it is by faith. In fact, some argue that it is much more far fetched and closed minded to be an atheist than to be a believer because there is more probability that there is some sort of higher power than not. Science says you don't know what you can't prove. Science can not prove the existence of God. Nor can it disprove God.



When scientists don't know something, they admit it. Pretending to know things one doesn't know is a profound liability for scientists. On the other hand, pretending to know things one doesn't know is the life-blood of religion.

When considering questions about the nature of the universe and our place within it, both scientists and atheists tend to draw their opinions from science. This isn’t arrogance, it's intellectual honesty.

The majority of scientists, and 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences, do not believe in a 'personal' god.  Neuroscience is examining the neuro-physiology of religious belief. Some of our tendency to 'believe', has its origins in the evolution of the neural networks of the brain. 

The arguments you are making are the same old tired ones that fundamentalists like to use. They align with people who think the earth is 6000 years old, that humans and dinosaurs were on the earth together, and that creationism should be taught in our schools. They seem to be able to dig up "scientists" that agree with them.


----------



## Radiant1

ProximaCentauri said:


> The majority of scientists, and 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences, do not believe in a 'personal' god.  Neuroscience is examining the neuro-physiology of religious belief. Some of our tendency to 'believe', has its origins in the evolution of the neural networks of the brain.



How many scientists do you suppose believe in a non-personal god? Neuroscience is fascinating stuff; I've done my own research regarding the science of the NDE phenomenon. I question though, if religious belief* is strictly biological, does that make it any less real? 

* Religious belief is a very broad term. What exactly is meant by "religious belief" in this context? Could you please cite your source? Thanks.


----------



## Zguy28

Radiant1 said:


> How many scientists do you suppose believe in a non-personal god? Neuroscience is fascinating stuff; I've done my own research regarding the science of the NDE phenomenon. I question though, if religious belief* is strictly biological, does that make it any less real?
> 
> * Religious belief is a very broad term. What exactly is meant by "religious belief" in this context? Could you please cite your source? Thanks.


If it is biological, more evidence for design.


----------



## Zguy28

Merlin99 said:


> God gets to do it without any repercussions, thug goes to hell for it.


I guess that is as good a summary as any. The thug does not have the right to take life because he is not the creator of it.



czygvtwkr said:


> By that argument so could the devil,  i mean what else is going to happen to him?


Yep. Just like the thug, the devil knows how to break the law too.


----------



## Beta

czygvtwkr said:


> That is an interesting question,  what is the opinion of a couple of swingers or porn stars getting married?



Or even 1 swinger or porn star marrying an average person.  :shrug:

That reminds me of the former porn star running for office in Florida.  I say who cares.  There are a lot of people who use that to pay for college.  I don't see the problem, but a lot of prudes think that makes them evil and not worthy of equal treatment in society.  Apparently it's better to work at McDonald's and make minimum wage than to seize an opportunity to make a lot more money for a lot less work.  

Why do people have to be so judgmental?


----------



## Merlin99

czygvtwkr said:


> By that argument so could the devil,  i mean what else is going to happen to him?



Kind of like committing a murder in jail while already serving life WOP.


----------



## Amused_despair

Zguy28 said:


> I guess that is as good a summary as any. The thug does not have the right to take life because he is not the creator of it.
> 
> Yep. Just like the thug, the devil knows how to break the law too.



So if you create life it is ok to end it....interesting


----------



## Zguy28

Amused_despair said:


> So if you create life it is ok to end it....interesting


Not really that interesting actually. Its just a plain fact. But it only applies to God, because He is the only one who can make something from nothing. The Old and New Testament show that God is the only one with total rights over life and death. He is maximally supreme and sovereign over His creation. Its not a hard concept to grasp I don't think. Its big, but not hard.


----------



## b23hqb

Zguy28 said:


> Not really that interesting actually. Its just a plain fact. But it only applies to God, because He is the only one who can make something from nothing. The Old and New Testament show that God is the only one with total rights over life and death. He is maximally supreme and sovereign over His creation. Its not a hard concept to grasp I don't think. Its big, but not hard.



His game. His rules. His house. It's up to us, individually, to go to Him. He has already been here for us.

Really not complicated.


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Radiant1 said:


> How many scientists do you suppose believe in a non-personal god? Neuroscience is fascinating stuff; I've done my own research regarding the science of the NDE phenomenon. I question though, if religious belief* is strictly biological, does that make it any less real?
> 
> * Religious belief is a very broad term. What exactly is meant by "religious belief" in this context? Could you please cite your source? Thanks.



I was referencing no specific source; there are many types of studies, methods, conclusions in this area. I would start with googling 'neuroscience of religious belief' -- 'Religious Belief' in this context is broad and covers multiple areas/types of belief. I think 'belief' in anything metaphysical likely has some enabling neurobiology, but I also think that one's upbringing, environment, education level, etc,, are major factors.

Btw, what did you conclude about NDE? Have you had an NDE experience?


----------



## Radiant1

ProximaCentauri said:


> I was referencing no specific source; there are many types of studies, methods, conclusions in this area. I would start with googling 'neuroscience of religious belief' -- 'Religious Belief' in this context is broad and covers multiple areas/types of belief. I think 'belief' in anything metaphysical likely has some enabling neurobiology, but I also think that one's upbringing, environment, education level, etc,, are major factors.
> 
> Btw, what did you conclude about NDE? Have you had an NDE experience?



No citation and no answer to my questions. I'm kind of disappointed in you.

No final conclusion, and yes.


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Radiant1 said:


> No citation and no answer to my questions. I'm kind of disappointed in you.
> 
> No final conclusion, and yes.



Oh well, failing you again, I suppose. But fascinating that you have had an NDE experience. I am interested in knowing what you experienced but you may want to keep that private and I don't blame you. But, strangely enough, we have this in common. Mine occurred Friday night, Aug 1 2008.


----------



## Amused_despair

Zguy28 said:


> God alone is the only one who has the right to create life and to take life as He pleases. Please consider that before sitting in judgment on Him and weigh it carefully my friend, because someday He will sit in judgement on all of us.



If this is how you feel then how do you feel about Capital Punishment?  Is it proper to take another life through execution by order of the state in answer to crimes committed against society?


----------



## hotcoffee

Amused_despair said:


> If this is how you feel then how do you feel about Capital Punishment?  Is it proper to take another life through execution by order of the state in answer to crimes committed against society?



Actually, the way I read it, the Bible does give man reason to use capital punishment.  There are however almost as many laws requiring that a man should be given guest status.  Even in Sodom the men could not enter the home of the man who took in strangers in order to save them.  Some even gave their daughters to angry crowds in exchange for the safety of a guest.  There was even a woman, I think her name was Rachel, who took in a couple of men.  When the tribe came in to take out the house.... they were taken to safety.  

Sometimes it's necessary to use capital punishment.... and some times you have to stand up for the guest.

I'm just one reader tho....


----------



## GURPS

Beta said:


> That reminds me of the former porn star running for office in Florida.




*A Star Is Porn: Whatever Became Of Italy’s Cicciolina?*


----------



## Amused_despair

The rules of hospitality and the treatment of guests have been around for a long time.  The provisions of punishment laid out in the Bible are not any I would wish my society to follow.  The argument on the table is that only God has the right to take life because he grants it.  If you agree than you can not argue for capital punishment, if you argue for capital punishment than you argue for sanctioned killing when needs allow, whether God wills it or not, for no one knows what the will of God is.


----------



## Zguy28

Amused_despair said:


> If this is how you feel then how do you feel about Capital Punishment?  Is it proper to take another life through execution by order of the state in answer to crimes committed against society?


Romans 13:1-7
1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.



Amused_despair said:


> The rules of hospitality and the treatment of guests have been around for a long time.  The provisions of punishment laid out in the Bible are not any I would wish my society to follow.  The argument on the table is that only God has the right to take life because he grants it.  If you agree than you can not argue for capital punishment, if you argue for capital punishment than you argue for sanctioned killing when needs allow, whether God wills it or not, for no one knows what the will of God is.


You make a mighty assumption when you declare "no one knows what the will of God is." I disagree, as does Christianity and Jesus. God's will is known through Scripture. It is a revelation of God's will.


----------



## Amused_despair

Zguy28 said:


> Romans 13:1-7
> 1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.



Isn't this passage an indictment against those who protest the government's actions such as the Cliven Bundy ranch?  It does not seem to support even the American Revolution since that was resisting the established authority.


----------



## Zguy28

Amused_despair said:


> Isn't this passage an indictment against those who protest the government's actions such as the Cliven Bundy ranch?


Yes, it does. Do you assume (it's becoming a habit for you) that because a person is a Christian, and expresses conservative views toward social issues, that they are monolithic? I can't stand Bundy or what he stands for. He's a law breaker and doesn't pay his debts.

The wicked borrows but does not pay back, but the righteous is generous and gives Psalm 37:21



> It does not seem to support even the American Revolution since that was resisting the established authority.


That is something that is debatable I suppose. I've often thought about it. A strict translation of the Scripture would seem to make it a wrong action for a Christian. However, the Founders were very heavily influenced by the "Enlightenment" ideas of their time. http://www.articlemyriad.com/influence-enlightenment-formation-united-states/


----------

